Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Sex Education

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research was conducted into the effects of sex education on children under 10 years of age before his Department gave advice regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation's television programmes.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the advice his Department gave to the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding its sex education programmes for children.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon)): There were no such consultations.

Mr. Hamilton: While I do not disagree with the principle of engaging in this sort of education, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the B.B.C. did not see fit either to consult with or to take the advice of the Department before deciding to put on these programmes?

Miss Bacon: It is not usual for the B.B.C. to seek our advice in this sort of matter, although, as my hon. Friend may know, representatives of the Department sit on the Schools Broadcasting Council. I believe that the B.B.C. has been very good about this and has at all stages consulted parents in the pilot areas where the films have been shown.

Mr. Price: Would the right hon. Lady disregard a lot of the ill-informed criticism that has been made both of these broadcasts and of some of the other excellent sex education that is being given to primary school children in our schools and try to work more closely with the B.B.C. in future to coordinate the work?

Miss Bacon: Accompanied by other Ministers, my right hon. Friend and I saw these films a short time ago and we felt that they did a very good job indeed. I believe that this view was shared by hon. Members who also saw the films. There is a good working arrangement with the B.B.C., but, strictly speaking, neither were we consulted nor are we ever called on to approve films made by the B.B.C.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Lady realise that some people, including myself, do not approve of the idea of the B.B.C. showing films of this type? Should not the Government take an attitude on this issue and express their feelings, as I did, about whether this is the correct kind of film to be shown on television to children aged under 10?

Miss Bacon: The B.B.C. has undertaken to seek parents' consent in every case before the films are shown, and this occurred in the pilot areas. Thus, no child is forced to see these films, which are available for children whose parents wish them to see them.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: Is my right hon Friend aware that there is great opposition from many parents to the idea of putting on television something which the individual teacher would be reluctant to teach?

Miss Bacon: I appreciate that there are differences of opinion, but I believe it is right that where schools wish to show these films to children as part of their general education, they should first ask parents to see the films and then obtain their consent.

Adult Residential Colleges (Student Grants)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that local education authorities are using consistent


criteria for the award of grants to mature students at the adult residential colleges.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I hope that all local education authorities will be prepared, in accordance with the advice given in a circular dated April, 1966, to make awards, at uniform rates, to suitable students undertaking courses of a year or more at adult residential colleges. My right hon. Friend, however, has no power to override the exercise of their discretion.

Mr. Boyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present situation is chaotic, with one local authority giving awards only to those over 30 while a neighbouring authority is giving awards only to those under 25? Is he further aware that some local authorities are demanding G.C.Es., a policy which is entirely opposite to that declared when the residential colleges were established?
Would my hon. Friend consider sending out a revised circular, and, if that does not work, consider increasing the number of mature State scholarships for adult students to ensure that places are not left empty in the residential colleges which the Government have established?

Mr. Fowler: I agree that there are variations in policy, and this situation is to be deplored. This matter has been drawn to the attention of local authorities. I will certainly consider whether it would be helpful to issue a revised circular.

Workers' Educational Association

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now increase the grant to the districts of the Workers' Educational Association, in view of the increasing burden of the association's costs caused by the growth of its programme of classes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): Grants to W.E.A. districts increased from £111,000 in 1959–60 to £252,000 in 1967–68. Figures for 1968–69 and 1969–70, when available, are likely to show further increases.

Mr. Boyden: Most of this increase is for teaching costs, but my point is that of the funds available the proportions

for administrative and organising costs have decreased severely with the increased teaching burden? Would my hon. Friend look at that aspect?

Miss Lestor: We will certainly look at that aspect, but my right hon. Friend would want to await the outcome of the Russell Committee inquiry before deciding whether any major alteration is required in the scale of support made to responsible bodies.

Mr. Cant: As one who has been associated with the W.E.A. for 35 years, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would not agree that this organisation has made a profound contribution to democratic development? It has been the inspiration of extramural departments and the Open University. Is it not time that this perpetual fight for financial survival ceased?

Miss Lestor: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. We are all particularly aware of the contribution that has been made to adult education by the W.E.A. I do not want to repeat what I have already said about the Russell Committee's inquiry, except to say that until its results are known any application for grant will be considered sympathetically by the Department.

Intensive Poultry Units (Waste Products Disposal)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money is currently being spent by the Agricultural Research Council on research into chemical additives which will minimise the stench arising from the disposal of waste products from intensive poultry units; and what success has so far been obtained with this research.

Mr. Fowler: The council is at present considering the possible extension of the research it is supporting on various aspects of the disposal of farm wastes, and I have no doubt that the possibilities of mitigating odours by additives will not be overlooked.

Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister of State aware that the problem referred in the Question is of acute, even if localised, consideration in rural communities, particularly in Shropshire? Why is he unable to indicate the amount of money


currently being spent? Are we to understand from that lack of indication that no money is currently being spent on this important problem? As the budget now runs at upwards of £15 million, does not the Minister think that it would be a sensible reallocation of priorities if the Agricultural Research Council did spend some money on these projects?

Mr. Fowler: The council is supporting research into various aspects of waste disposal at many of its own institutes. I am sure that it is well aware of the importance, not least in Shropshire, of research into the precise problem which the hon. Gentleman describes, but the principal objective must be to dispose of waste in a manner that renders it innocuous rather than concentrating on simply making it inoffensive.

Mr. Rankin: Should not the responsibility of keeping their own factory farms clean and wholesome lie with the farmers themselves?

Mr. Fowler: Responsibility does rest, of course, on the individual farmer; nevertheless it is the duty of the Government and the research councils, as well as of other bodies, to give what help can be given in terms of finding more effective ways of dealing with the problem.

Comprehensive Education

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have now submitted schemes for the reorganisation of comprehensive education; and how many have declined to do so.

Miss Bacon: A total of 152 local education authorities have submitted schemes, of which 129 have so far been approved. The plans of 11 authorities have been referred back; three of these have declined to submit revised proposals. A further five have declined to submit any scheme.

Mr. Molloy: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I congratulate her Department on the contribution which it has made to eliminating the barbarities of the 11-plus examination. Can my right hon. Friend say what plans are in hand to try to overcome the myopia of those backward authorities which cannot see the light of day and sense?

Miss Bacon: As has already been announced in the Queen's Speech, my right hon. Friend is to introduce this Session a Bill to ensure that all local authorities submit plans for comprehensive reorganisation to get rid of the 11-plus examination.

Mrs. Thatcher: If that Bill comes forward, can the right hon. Lady say how much her right hon. Friend is prepared to make available in money terms to enable the necessary changes in buildings to be made?

Miss Bacon: The present school building programme is exactly twice what it was in 1963–64. In addition to that, £105 million have been allocated over the next two or three years for the raising of the school-leaving age. Those local authorities which already have a scheme of reorganisation approved are spending most of this money to help secondary reorganisation.

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many existing comprehensive schools, and in how many that are approved or planned for the future, pupils are situated in buildings over a quarter of a mile apart; and in how many of these comprehensive schools at present or in the midst of being approved will there be two, three or four locations, respectively, more than a quarter of a mile apart.

Miss Bacon: This information is not available.

Mr. Emery: Does the Minister agree that there are many comprehensive schools situated in buildings not only a quarter of a mile apart but sometimes two or three miles apart? Is it not important that she should have this information, because when school buildings are so far apart it is quite impossible for the teaching staff to get round them? Sometimes they use taxis. This matter must be corrected.

Miss Bacon: When I consider schemes of secondary reorganisation I also consider very carefully schools where the buildings are separated. I am certain that none has been approved where the distance between the buildings would make it difficult to run the school. The hon. Member's original Question not only refers to those which have been set up


and approved but includes comprehensive schools set up some years ago under the previous Administration. It would be very difficult, without circularising all the local authorities, to get this precise information.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of our most famous public schools exist in buildings which are very widely scattered over an area? I used to teach in a school which functioned happily in buildings which were a mile apart. Is it not a fact that those who object are not objecting because of the separation of buildings but are objecting to the principle?

Miss Bacon: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many, and in what proportion, of the total of comprehensive schools there are facilities for holding morning assembly for the whole school in one hall, in two halls, and in three or more halls, respectively; and in how many assembly has to be duplicated in the same hall because of inadequate accommodation.

Miss Bacon: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is rather unlucky. This information is not available.

Mr. Emery: Does this not underline the inability of the Ministry to come to any judgment, because where the school is unable to be gathered in one place—and I can give the right hon. Lady information if she does not know it—it is impossible to have a comprehensive school and an assembly without duplicating in more than one building? This is where there are one, two or three halls.

Miss Bacon: In the Standards of School Premises Regulations, 1959, a separate assembly hall is not a requirement. The hon. Member is quite wrong in thinking that it is a requirement laid down in the regulations which were approved in 1959, but it is open to the local education authority to make such arrangements for the morning assembly as it wishes.

Mr. Marks: If my right hon. Friend continues her investigations into accommodation, will she inquire how many

private schools in the country are not purpose-built and how many of them fail to come up to required standards?

Miss Bacon: I agree that of course it is not necessary always to have a new purpose-built building to have a very good school. If the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) loked at some of the schools approved at the time when his party was in power, he would find that this was so. I agree with my hon. Friends when they suggest that this is not so much an attack on schools whose buildings are separated as an attack on the whole comprehensive system.

School Meals

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the actual and percentage increase in the cost of the school meal, excluding capital expenditure, over the last five years; and how this compares with the actual and percentage increase in the index of retail prices over the same period.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): Over the last five complete financial years the actual increase in the cost of the school meal has been 6·4d., or 25·7 per cent. These figures are not strictly comparable with the index of retail prices—which does not include wages—over the same period, and other factors, such as the improved nutritional value of the meal, have to be taken into account. When weight is given to the wages movement affecting school meals employees over the period, and also to Retail Price Index movements appropriate both to the Index and to school dinners, the increase is of the order of 27 per cent.

Mr. Hill: Will not the Secretary of State agree that he was somewhat in error when he told the House on 17th November that the cost of school meals had increased much less than had retail prices generally?

Mr. Short: I do not think that I was in error at all. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in the summer term of 1966 we considerably increased the nutritional standards of school meals and abandoned the 1955 standards. If that fact, as well as wage increases, is taken


into account, what I said is strictly correct.

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by the working party set up in 1967 to review the arrangements for free school meals to ensure that children could receive them without embarrassment either to themselves or to their parents.

Miss Bacon: Local education authorities carried out a review of their procedures. The results of this review were considered by a working party which included representatives of local education authorities and of the Department. It was evident that great pains were being taken to protect children and their parents from embarrassment, and the working party considered that it was not necessary to add to the guidance already given in the Department's Circular 12/67. My right hon. Friend is, however, reviewing this matter again.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the recent increases, which are since the recommendations of that working party, and as it is clear that there may well be further increases in the price of school meals under the present Government, would it not be appropriate to try to find a method by which the charge is made, not obviously against the child, but quietly against the parent?

Miss Bacon: I am sure that all local authorities are doing this. Since this review the number of children taking free school meals has risen from 404,000 in the autumn of 1967, to 594,000 in the autumn of 1969.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I had an Adjournment debate on this important subject about 21 months ago. Has she seen the rather disturbing reports from Manchester about the segregation of children receiving free school meals? Will the Department look into this matter urgently?

Miss Bacon: Yes, I have seen these reports. I have taken steps to inquire into the matter. I am told that this was done, without the headmaster's knowledge, by a school meals supervisory assistant, and as soon as it was known what was hap-

pening the system was changed. The local authority's attention has been drawn to this. I have been on the telephone only this morning to ascertain the details.

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the progress made in devising arrangements to ensure that children from low-income families have free school meals and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children, under the new regulations, now qualify for free school dinners but do not claim them.

Miss Bacon: This term, on a census date, 594,000 children in England and Wales were taking free school meals, compared with 404,000 in the autumn of 1967 and 330,000 in the autumn of 1966. No records are available of children whose parents do not claim free meals.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those figures, but will she consider sending another circular to parents, as the previous Secretary of State did in 1967, and will she direct it particularly to the parents of infant children? Also, will she consider raising the income level at which entitlement to free school meals begins?

Miss Bacon: I shall consider issuing another circular. The income level was raised on 3rd November this year and the new level is now in operation. A man with four children who has a net income of £16 2s.—there are certain disregards which may amount to £2 or £3 a week—receives free school meals for all four children now.

Mr. Allaun: Following the recent increases, I support my hon. Friend's plea that the Minister should send a letter to all parents through the schools telling them of the availability of free meals and how to obtain them without embarrassment.

Miss Bacon: I shall consider that.

Secondary Education (Re-organisation)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science


if he will issue advice to local education authorities to ensure that proper consultation with parents is carried out by them when secondary reorganisation is proposed.

Mr. Edward Short: Circular 10/65 asked local education authorities to keep parents fully and authoritatively informed from an early stage, and I attach great importance to their doing so.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some areas, particularly those areas in which the local authorities are not prepared to carry out comprehensive reorganisation, these consultations with parents are not taking place? Does he not think that he ought to get in touch with those authorities again, and request them—indeed, instruct them—to carry out parent meetings so that those parents who are overwhelmingly in favour of comprehensive education can express their point of view?

Mr. Short: The Question is about consultation where the local authority is carrying out reorganisation. I do not hesitate to take it up with a local authority if I find that the consultation is not adequate. But in the Bill to which my right hon. Friend has just referred there will be a Clause dealing with this point.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is not the most important point that there should be consultation with parents before a scheme takes place? I am told that in many cases this consultation is not taking place. Many people who are opposed to comprehensive education are not getting the opportunity to putting forward their views to the local authority.

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman knows of any authority where adequate consultation is not taking place before plans are finalised, I hope that he will let me know.

Comprehensive Schools (Wolverhampton)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take following the representations made by parents in the Wolverhampton Local Education Authority's area about the changes being made in the Smestow and Regis comprehensive schools.

Mr. Edward Short: If my hon. Friend will supply me with details, I will look into the matter.

Mrs. Short: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many meetings of parents have been held in the area of these two comprehensive schools to protest at the decomprehensivisation, if I may use such a word, of those schools? Does he not think it high time that comprehensive schools which are now established and extremely successful should be protected by his Department?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. But, as my hon. Friend knows, this matter is within the discretion of the local authority. However, if she will send particulars, I will certainly look into the matter again.

Taching Profession (Career Structure)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will commission an inquiry into the career structure of the teaching profession.

Mr. Edward Short: As I told the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 2nd December, I am prepared to consider an examination of the structure of teachers' salary scales.

Mr. Onslow: Does not the Secretary of State agree that unless such action is taken and unless the root causes of the present regrettable situation are removed, teaching may cease to be a profession worthy of the name?

Mr. Short: I certainly hope that agreement can be reached between the local authorities and the teachers' organisations on a radical review of the structure of teachers' salaries.
Mr. Newens: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that more emphasis should be placed in future on making the basic scale sufficiently attractive to good teachers who want to do a good job in the class-room, rather than on making the rewards at the top more attractive in the hope of keeping more teachers in the profession to scramble after these places?

Mr. Short: These differences of opinion illustrate the need for a review of the whole structure. I am quite sure that


the structure of salary scales has become distorted because there have been too many across-the-board increases.

Mrs. Thatcher: What kind of review has the right hon. Gentleman in mind—an internal departmental review, or a more public review?

Mr. Short: I have nothing in mind at all about this yet. All I am trying to do is to interest both parties—and I do not employ the teachers; the local authorities employ them—to interest local authorities and teachers' organisations in some sort of radical review of the salary scales.

Departmental Stationery

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he takes to secure the maximum economy in his Department's use of official stationery.

Mr. Edward Short: My procedures for controlling the issue and use of official stationery ensure that the Department is able to function efficiently but as economically as possible. My officials are alive to the need for sensible economies. All demands are subject to stock control and to a counter-signature procedure, and it is standard practice for all demands to be scrutinised before stock is issued to ensure that no avoidable waste occurs. All forms used in the Department are devised or approved by the Organisation and Methods Unit.

Mr. Onslow: That is all very encouraging, but will the Secretary of State make sure that pieces of paper 8¼ ins. by 6 ins. are not sent out in envelopes 12¾ ins. by 9 ins.?

Mr. Short: The hon. Member asked precisely the same question in May and he was told that the piece of paper was sent in that sized envelope because another document was sent with it and that was a bigger document. I should point out that it has cost about £25 to answer this Question

Scientific Research

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take following the Science Policy study, which he

authorised, in attempting to quantify the benefits of scientific research.

Mr. Fowler: Further studies are being commissioned at the University of Manchester to test the method of attempting to quantify benefits which was suggested in the published study.

Mr. Osborn: While I recognise that it is a very valuable document which was published in April, would it not be wise to do more work in this field? What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to observe recommendations made by some of the studies which have already been carried out?

Mr. Fowler: A great deal of work is going on in this field, not only in my Department or through the Council for Scientific Policy, but also in the Ministry of Technology. It is very important, and I am keen that we should find reliable methods of quantifying the benefits of scientific research. I do not think it would be easy or necessary to check these policies in the very near future.

University Teachers (Salary Negotiations)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in devising better machinery for the negotiation of university teachers' salaries.

Mr. Fowler: A number of suggestions have been examined, and I am today having another meeting with the parties most concerned.

Mr. Lane: Now that the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy is about to be published, as it has been delaying this matter hitherto and in view of the great dependence on university teachers for the development of higher education is the 'seventies, can the hon. Gentleman undertake that higher priority will be given by the Department to seeking a solution to this problem than has been given in the last few months?

Mr. Fowler: I think the hon. Member is misinformed. The Department has always given priority to this. I certainly give it very high prority. On the other hand, I also recognise that it is a very difficult problem. It will be difficult


to find a solution which will be acceptable to all parties, but we shall certainly try.

Married Women Students

Mr. Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will amend the University and Other Awards Regulations in respect of married women students under 21 years of age to take account of the lowering of the age of majority to 18 years from January, 1970.

Mr. Fowler: Under these regulations, women who are over 21 and married before the beginning of their course are deemed to be independent of their parents. The corresponding age for men and single women is 25. It would be inequitable to make changes in favour of married women students without revising the entire system of parental contributions.

Mr. Wright: Does the Minister not appreciate the anomaly of this position? A married woman student under 21 with a parent who has considerable wealth is deemed to be dependent on that parent and may get no grant from the State, but, because she is married, she may get no grant from the parent. There is an anomaly here; will the hon. Gentleman not look at it again?

Mr. Fowler: Not now. The present system of student grants is largely based on the Report of the Anderson Committee, which was issued in 1960. If it were possible to abolish parental contributions there would be stronger claims than that of a married woman under 21, such as a married man student over 21 with children.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend look at the question of married men students under 21 in colleges of education who receive a single man's grant which is subject to parental contribution?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, but my hon. Friend is attacking the whole principle of parental contributions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid he is. There is no easy way out of this. The cost of abolishing parental contributions in the present academic year would be between £35million and £40 million.

Graduate Teachers (Maintained Secondary Schools)

Mr. Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of graduate teachers in mathematics, physics and chemistry entered maintained secondary schools in each of the last five years.

Miss Bacon: The numbers of graduate teachers in mathematics and science who entered maintained secondary schools in England and Wales in the years 1963–64 to 1967–68 respectively were:

1,626
1,648
1,907
1,947
2,109

Of the 2,109, 566 were graduates in mathematics and 1,543 in science.

Mr. Wright: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on having some statistics available in reply to this Question. Does she not share the concern of the House at this very small increase over this quinquennial period? What is she doing to increase the supply of these teachers at a time when the schools are beginning to bulge and the pressure on sixth forms is increasing?

Miss Bacon: We cannot win with hon. Members opposite. If we have not got figures, they grumble. If we have figures and they look rather good, hon. Members opposite say that they are not good enough. The figures I have given show that the annual intake increased by over 8 per cent. in the last year I quoted. With growing numbers in the schools we need even more of these teachers, and we are trying, by advertisement and other means, to improve recruitment. I do not accept that the increase has not been a good one.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend give us the figures for honours graduates in those subjects?

Miss Bacon: I could not do that without notice.

Mrs. Thatcher: To enable us to judge how good the figures are, can the right hon. Lady also tell us the number of pupils and the number of science graduates leaving in the same year, because what is important is the teacher-pupil ratio?

Miss Bacon: That is another question. If the hon. Lady cares to table a Question seeking that information, I shall be happy to answer it.

Primary School Classes

Mr. Rossi: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for getting rid of every primary school class of over 40 by 1971.

Mr. Edward Short: The improved supply of teachers and large school building programmes give us the opportunity virtually to solve this problem by the end of the present school year. In a recent circular—16/69—I asked local education authorities to make a special effort during this school year to eliminate oversize primary classes, by adopting the most appropriate measures in each case.

Mr. Rossi: Is the expected growth in the rate support grant sufficient to justify the right hon. Gentleman's optimism? Is it not a question of adequate buildings? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient in the improvement part of the building programme to bring all the existing primary schools up to the required standard to enable the classes to be reduced to this size?

Mr. Short: As was pointed out earlier, we have doubled the building programme during the five years this Government have been in office. In the negotiations for the present two-year period for the rate support grant we did not reduce by one teacher the number of teachers the local authorities said they wished to employ. As a result, virtually every teacher who came out of college this year has obtained employment.

Mr. Tinn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's original answer, but does he agree that it is time he reconsidered the figure of 40, which is too high a maximum?

Mr. Short: Perhaps it has escaped my hon. Friend's notice that I have abolished the regulation which laid down 40 for primary schools and 30 for secondary schools.

Mr. Chrisopher Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of primary school classes over 30, and the percentage

of primary school pupils in classes over 30, respectively, at the latest available date.

Miss Bacon: In January, 1969, 99,943, and 76·6 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Ward: Does the right hon. Lady regard those figures as satisfactory? What plans has she to reduce the size of classes further, and by when?

Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman's Question refers to classes of 30. My right hon. Friend has been doing everything possible to get rid of classes of over 40. At the time when the hon. Gentleman asked for the information, 9·5 per cent. of primary classes were of over 40, as compared with 10·8 per cent. a year before, which is a more rapid fall than in any other recent year.

Dame Irene Ward: As additional teachers are required, and these would probably follow a betterment of the salary structure for teachers, would it not be a good idea if the Secretary of State resigned, so that he could then demonstrate that he was as in favour of helping teachers as I am, thus showing that the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the nigger in the woodpile? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman have his own strike?

Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend will not resign, and none of us would wish his to resign because he is doing such a good job.

Primary and Secondary Schools (Teachers' Wastage)

Mr. Rossi: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average length of service in primary and secondary schools of young men and women teachers after completing their initial training.

Miss Bacon: This precise information is not available, but figures of wastage are printed in Volume 4 of Statistics of Education 1967. I am sending the hon. Member extracts from the relevant tables.

Mr. Rossi: Do not the figures reveal a very alarming situation and indicate that there must urgently be a betterment in the salary structure after the first three to five years, particularly for male teachers?

Miss Bacon: It must not be assumed that those who leave employment in schools are lost to the education service, because many of them transfer to special schools, to institutes of further education, and to administration. This must æ borne in mind when studying the figures.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the question of the long salary scale? Does this mirror the advantages of teaching for those who have this length of service? It is not found in a number of other countries.

Miss Bacon: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said this afternoon, he would like there to be an investigation into this whole matter. I cannot go further than that in answering this question.

Careers Services (Colleges of Further Education)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance and information services about careers are available in colleges of further education.

Mr. Fowler: Although arrangements vary, students at further education establishments normally look to college teaching staff for careers guidance and advice. The Youth Employment Service, in cooperation with the teaching staff, is available to students up to the age of 18. For older students, the Occupational Guidance Service and the employment, information and placement facilities of the Department of Employment and Productivity are available.

Mr. Silvester: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to one estimate, up to 20,000 students leave these colleges without advice on their careers? Should not the Department urgently give some instruction and guidance to these colleges to encourage the development of information services about careers?

Mr. Fowler: This is a matter in which my Department, the D.E.P., and the L.E.A.s are taking a positive and continued interest. In July of this year my Department sent a circular letter to L.E.A.s and colleges drawing attention to the service offered by the occupational guidance units of the D.E.P.

School Building

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total of school building in 1963–64; and what is the estimated total for 1971–72.

Mr. Edward Short: £89·5 million and £175·5 million, at current prices.

Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend as a former headmaster help me with my mental arithmetic? Is not that almost double? Does not this news, coming on top of today's magnificent trading returns, provide convincing evidence that Labour government works? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of that most satisfactory Answer, I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give his Department a half holiday?

Mr. Short: Following a recent precedent in the education world, I should be entitled to take 14 days off.

Mrs. Thatcher: What proportion of the increase has gone to providing roofs over heads for more pupils and what proportion for the replacement of old buildings?

Mr. Short: I cannot answer that offhand. If the hon. Lady cares to table a Question I will give her the information. If the Conservative Government had had a bigger education building programme, we should certainly have been able to do more replacement. She will have noticed that I have recently asked the local authorities for bids for a £15 million replacement programme, which is three times as great as any previous programme.

School Leavers (A Levels)

Mr. Christopher Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the numbers of school-leavers with two or more General Certificate of Education A levels in 1970, 1975 and 1980; what is his estimate of the proportion of the age group obtaining these qualifications; and how these estimates compare with those made in the Robbins Report on Higher Education.

Mr. Edward Short: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ward: Do not the figures show that many more young people will be qualifying for university education than was previously supposed? Does the Secretary of State plan to increase the n umber of places at universities and other institutions of higher education accordingly?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is right in his reference to an increase. This is one of the results of reorganising our secondary schools. For example, for 1980 the Robbins estimate was 12·1 per cent. of the age group attaining two or more A levels, and it now looks as though the proportion will be 20·2 per cent. This is a direct result of reorganising our schools. The Labour Government in the middle of the 1970s will provide places for all of them.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend expect the G.C.E. A level to be in existence in 1975, in the light of recent reports?

Mr. Short: The report to which my hon. Friend refers, which was published yesterday, is a report not to me but to the Schools Council. We shall all have to study it during the next few months.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Before the Secretary of State waxes too glibe in taking the credit, would it not be as well to recall that this is the result of the work of the teaching profession? When does he expect to receive replies to his circular to the universities designed to deal with the situation raised in my hon. Friend's Question?

Mr. Short: The party opposite has had a lot of bad news, what with the trade figures and the announcements which I have made. Of course, it is the result of the work of the teachers in the reorganised secondary schools. On the second point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give the facts correctly. He knows that the circular was not a Government circular; it was drawn up and sent out by the vice-chancellors themselves, not by me.

Following is the information:

ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF SCHOOL LEAVERS OBTAINING TWO OR MORE GCE "A" LEVEL PASSES




Thousands
Percentage of age group




Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Total


Latest Estimates



Percent.
Percent.
Percent.


1970
…
50·4
35·8
86·2
14·8
11·0
12·9


1975
…
66·6
50·1
116·7
18·6
14·7
16·7


1980
…
91·7
70·5
162·2
22·3
18·0
20·2

Source: Statistics of Education, 1968, Volume 2 to be published.

Rabbins Report Estimates


1970
…
38·4
21·0
59·4
11·6
6·6
9·2


1975
…
48·0
25·9
73·9
13·5
7·6
10·6


1980
…
64·5
34·5
99·0
13·5
8·6
12·1

Source: Robbins Report, Appendix One, Part IV; Tables 5 and 6.

Arts (Expenditure)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the amount being spent on the arts in 1963–64; and what is the figure for 1969–70.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Government spending on the arts has risen from £9½43 million in 1963–64 to £21½3 million in 1969–70. These figures include £3½79 million capital expenditure on the national museums and galleries, which is borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Public Building and Works.

Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a question of precept and practice, and that, whereas the Opposition always talked about these things, the Labour Government have practised them.

Miss Lee: We must take it for granted that a Labour Government will he concerned with the quality of life to an exceptional extent.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had


with the representatives of the National Economic Development Council on prospects for exports, industry by industry, in 1970 to 1972; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I shall be taking the chair at the next meeting of the Council on 16th December. On the discussions on export prospects for various industries, I would refer to my reply last Tuesday to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory), for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy).—[Vol. 793, c. 104–5.]

Mr. Marten: As the Department of Economic Affairs has now been abandoned, has the National Plan also been abandoned, or, if not, is it the Prime Minister who is responsible for it as chairman of the N.E.D.C., and also for the check lists in it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of what the meeting is about, despite my answer last week. It is to look at the forward figures in "The Task Ahead" in respect of exports and imports, industry by industry, following the survey by the little "Neddies". As regards Ministerial responsibility, the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, remember what I told the House on 13th October.

Mr. Fraser: Do not today's magnificent trade figures, while not giving room for complacency, vindicate the Government's economic planning strategy? If the present favourable trend continues, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of increasing the rate of economic growth somewhat?

The Prime Minister: We never base our views on a single month's trade figures, but we have now had a surplus in four successive months. Taking the last three months ending at November, we have had a visible trade balance of an average of plus £15 million per month, as against minus £7 million in the previous three months. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—[AN HON. MEMBER: "He is not listening."]—he is now—who so sourly greeted the second quarter's balance of payments figures and said that we must wait for the third quarter, will wish to express his unfeigned delight at

the fact that the figures published this week, which will be before the N.E.D.C.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "TOO long."]—not too long, too high for the right hon. Gentleman—showed a surplus of £214 million seasonally adjusted, in the third quarter as against £72 million in the second quarter—those are plus figures—compared with a minus figure of £147 million when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Trade, a turn-round of £361 million in a single quarter.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although we thoroughly welcome any improvement in the export figures, we believe that these results are achieved by our businessmen and not by Cabinet Ministers? They are achieved not because of this Government but in spite of them?

The Prime Minister: I have heard that argument before. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have said for the last four years that it could not be achieved with this Government. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has such strictures about the miserable performance of Britain's businessmen when he was the Chancellor and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was President of the Board of Trade.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must not get too happy.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was seeking to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: I did not observe that.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Would my right hon. Friend consider taking the Leader of the Opposition with him to the N.E.D.C.—

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Morris: —even as a humble observer so that he will better understand the significance of these trade figures? Is my right hon. Friend aware that four months ago, when the first of these remarkable sets of figures was available, the Leader of the Opposition said, "I will wait until I see next month's figures" and that on the second occasion he said "I will wait until I see the third


month's figures"? Is it not time that he considered the current month's figures and the remarkable success they show?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider by hon. Friend's interesting suggestion when the right hon. Gentleman has had time to do his homework. My hon. Friend misrepresents the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman made that sour comment on the publication of die second quarter balance of payments figures, not I think as any reaction to individual monthly trade figures.
I am aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was not Chancellor in that year. He was a member of the Cabinet but I think that we were then seeing the pay-off in that year—even though it was a new Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—in the very bad balance of payments figures.

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (VISIT)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to Questions by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) on Tuesday.—[Vol. 793, c. 239.]

Mr. Molloy: In his replies the Prime Minister said that he would always be prepared to consider any invitation to the Soviet Union. In view of the remarkable increase in prestige and the almost solidarity of this nation, as has been shown in the last set of Questions, would my right hon. Friend now consider initiating a proposal for him to visit the Soviet Union to discuss such serious subjects as Vietnam, the Middle East, disarmament and the possibility of a European Security Council?

The Prime Minister: On the question of trade figures, I have no doubt they will hake been studied by all the countries with which we have dealings, and, of course, the increase in trade with the Soviet Union has been particularly marked in these last five years. With regard to the other matters, I can assure my hon. Friend that whatever decision

is taken at any time about a personal meeting with Mr. Kosygin, we are in very close touch with him on these subjects.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another thing which has been particularly marked about our trade with the Soviet Union has been the remarkable increase in the adverse balance which we have with that country? If he goes to Moscow will he raise this matter?

The Prime Minister: This has been a continuing problem, to my knowledge for over 20 years, and was a problem for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was President of the Board of Trade. We have had to deal with it, too, and the gap has been narrowing somewhat. The Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries do not accept our insistence on an absolutely bilateral balance, because they want to earn sterling in their trade with us because of their adverse balance with other sterling area countries.

SPANISH HEAD OF STATE (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with the Spanish Head of State.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Evans: Would the Prime Minister try to find an opportunity of conveying to General Franco the deep repugnance felt by many people in these countries of Britain at the continuing denial by his régime of all legislative autonomy in the nations of Catalonia and the Basque? Will he express to General Franco our sense of horror at the appalling treatment meted out to Basque nationalists in Spanish gaols?

The Prime Minister: The views of the House are very well known on some of these questions of the treatment of minorities within European Spain and in other parts of the Spanish empire. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the question of the right to vote, while it is true that those living in Spanish territories overseas do not have much of a right to vote, nor have the occupants of Spain in the sense that we understand it in England, Wales and Scotland.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish as a Green Paper the Treasury report on the economic and financial effects of Great Britain joining the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: I take it that my right hon. Friend is referring to the White Paper foreshadowed in the Answer I gave on 18th November. I have nothing to add to what I then stated.—[Vol. 791, c. 1106–11.]

Mr. Mitchell: I was not really referring to that one at all. Is it not essential that before this House is asked to vote once again on the question of entering the Common Market the fullest possible information which is available to Government should be made available to Members of the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not referring to that one, because there is not another one to refer to. I have said that the estimates we are making, and I mentioned some of the difficulties about this on 18th November, will be made available to the House either as a White Paper or as more than one White Paper. My hon. Friend says a Green Paper; but that would not be appropriate. White Papers are usual either when there is some statement of policy or when they set out to give the background and factual information. The policy has been debated a number of times, and what will be done here will not be a matter, as it were, for arguing as to what sort of policy it should be; it will be as clear a statement of the facts as we can make it about the economic implications of joining the Common Market.

Mr. Turton: Whether it is published as a Green or a White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Paper is available to hon. Members as soon as possible after the House reassembles in January, and will he then intervene with his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to secure an early debate in the House.

The Prime Minister: The question of a debate is not for me but for discussions with the usual channels. I will certainly

do my best to get this information published as quickly as possible after it is in. I have said, I think to the right hon. Gentleman, certainly to the House a week or two ago, that we have to make assumptions which can only be assumptions, and it may well be that between now and then we shall have somewhat greater clarity taking place within the Common Market agricultural policy. It may not be very much information, but it might bear on the assumptions in the White Paper.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Lane: Q5. Mr. Lane asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the responsibilities for the environment placed on the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning are sufficiently matched by his powers; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question at the end of Question Time.

RETIREMENT PENSIONS

Mr. William Price: Q6. Mr. William Price asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from retirement pensioners to the effect that their recent increase was less than expected because they were drawing social supplementary benefits.

The Prime Minister: No separate figures are available, Sir.

Mr. Price: While I support the principle of giving the poorest pensioners an interim increase in social security benefits, is my right hon. Friend aware that in practice it causes great bitterness and dispute when they find that they have less of the pension increase than they expected? Could we work slowly towards a system whereby pensions and social security benefits are increased together?

The Prime Minister: This problem has been with us for many years. I remember speaking about it from the benches opposite just before Christmas many years ago. I think that it has happened on six occasions, and I know the arguments and concern. People think that they


are being robbed. In fact, there was a 5s. increase last year and 5s. increase this year in supplementary benefit, which means that over the two years no one has lost anything, compared with the rise in the basic rate. While we could have said that we would give 10s. this year, it would have meant that they would have been robbed of the 5s. for a whole year, which I do not think anyone wants.

Mr. Forteseue: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the consternation of retirement pensioners about the present situation will be as nothing compared with their consternation when they wake up to the fact that they are almost completely excluded from the new scheme of the Secretary of State of Social Services?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should give deep study to the White Paper and to what has been said by the Government, particularly the pledge, which has never been given by the party opposite in the past—certainly not when they were in power—about the treatment of existing pensioners. There was great fuss from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about having a debate on this so that my right hon. Friend could explain the position, but there were precious few of them there.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are other inequalities in connection with supplementary benefit? I had a letter this week from an old-age pensioner who, because he was on supplementary benefit, had a 10s. addition to his National Coal Board pension taken off his supplementary pension. This means that the National Coal Board is supplementing the Social Security Commission.

The Prime Minister: One can understand the feeling when that happens. The same is true in connection with the national basic pension. If my hon. Friend thinks about the alternative, he will realise the great inequity of it because supplementary benefit is supposed to be provided on a basis of people having enough to live on. If we had any other policy, there would be a great deal of unfair discrimination between supplementary benefits received.

Mr. Lawler: Is the Prime Minister aware that supplementary pensioners who

are already receiving top-scale supplementary benefits are particularly hard hit by, for instance, the current increases in the price of coal and Coalite, for which they have no money? Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that he will help them from the newfound wealth of the country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the successive increases which have been made in the basic rate and in supplementary benefit. He will know that on the basic rate they have gone at a very much more rapid rate than in the 13 years before 1964. He will know, if he keeps a close watch on these things, that there has been an increase when necessary and that the real value of the basic pension today is 20 per cent. more than what it was in 1964.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q5.
With regard to the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, I gave full information to the House on 13th October. The House will also recall that I asked my right hon. Friend to go urgently into the question of environmental pollution in all its forms and to make proposals to me on how the problem should be dealt with.
My right hon. Friend has now reported. He is setting up a permanent central unit, composed mainly of scientists on his own staff, to assist him in his coordinating rôle on environmental pollution. Through his staff he will maintain close relationships with the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government and with the research councils and other institutions concerned with the problem.
Following my right hon. Friend's report to me, I have recommended, and Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve, that a standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution should be set up with the following terms of reference:
To advise on matters, both national and international, concerning the pollution of the


environment; on the adequacy of research in this field; and the future possibilities of danger to the environment.
It is intended that this shall be a standing Commission able to take up any problem relating to pollution so that the benefit of the best possible advice will be available to Government Departments responsible for executive action.
One aspect of this matter which has caused particular concern is the problem of noise. My right hon. Friend proposes to establish an Advisory Council to deal with this, on the lines of the Clean Air Council.
Concern has also been expressed in the House and outside about the use of pesticides. I should, therefore, inform the House that the agriculture Ministers are already engaged in consultations about the preparation of legislation to replace the existing voluntary system of control on the use of pesticides. Proposals will be brought before the House.
On the general question of environmental pollution, the Government intend to present to the House a White Paper next year. This will show how much has so far been achieved under the existing arrangements which our new proposals will greatly reinforce.

Mr. Lane: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on the principle of better late than never, there will be great relief that the Government have at last been stirred to do something about environmental pollution? In view of the public concern especially about pollution in the Irish Sea, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State keep in mind that what the public want is not advice, consultation, or co-ordination, but action?

The Prime Minister: I will take from hon. Members on my own side, but not from hon. Members opposite, any suggestions that we have been dilatory in dealing with this matter. A great deal has been done and there have been reports to the House on the executive action taken by individual Departments in various fields of pollution.
What we are now to have is, first, a Minister charged with this responsibility and with the necessary scientific staff to carry it out, and, secondly, a standing Royal Commission to act as a watchdog

on this problem and to ensure that the executive Departments—and, inevitably, different Departments are concerned—are brought into play as rapidly as possible to deal with any question which arises.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the problems in the Irish Sea. We have already had a number of reports on these questions. Some of them are very inconclusive about the cause, for example, of the recent deaths of a lot of baby seals.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country is regarded throughout the world as the leader in taking action on environmental questions? This is further proof of our leadership and of our concern about pollution. However, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his proposal will avoid the danger of the overlap of responsibilities, which has been one of our anxieties in the past?

The Prime Minister: It is meant to cut through the overlapping of responsibilities. This country has been a leader in these matters. Within the last two or three years we have set up the Natural Environment Research Council which, as my hon. Friend knows, because he studies its work, has a great deal to do with providing finance for investigating the scientific causes, for example, of the mysterious deaths of sea birds and seals and the problem of diseased fish and things of that kind, about which there is great anxiety. We want a central body, a standing Commission, which has power to ensure that action is taken quickly and to draw these matters to the attention of all executive Departments, including local authorities.

Mr. Chataway: Are not these different, perhaps better, arrangements for tendering advice and financing research? Is it still the case that responsibility for action is left divided between at least half a dozen Departments and that the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning has no powers himself to deal with environmental pollution?

The Prime Minister: My right. hon. Friend will be in general charge of all Departments, which have their own duties. It is true that a number of Departments must be involved. It would


not be right for my right hon. Friend, for example, to have his own staff to deal with pesticides, agricultural feed and fertilisers. That must be the job of the Ministry of Agriculture.
It will be my right hon. Friend's job, within the unit established and with the watchdog activities of the new standing Royal Commission, to ensure that any problem is rapidly dealt with and that there is machinery through my right hon. Friend to clear up obstruction or overlapping of functions.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed in many parts of the country? Will it be within the competence of the Royal Commission to examine the very serious problem which confronts the farming community in dealing with pollution due to sudden flooding which is experienced in the farming communities in the Trent Valley area, which is fed by tributaries to the Trent River and the highly developed area surrounding Birmingham, in view of the huge increase in impervious surfaces?

The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been considering whether additional powers are needed to control the disposal of waste in order to give additional defence at times of flooding and other times against the pollution of what I understand is known in the trade as aquifers. This will come directly under my right hon. Friend, who is in charge of the supervision of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed not only on these benches, but throughout the country, where there has been great anxiety about the problem of pollution? Would he make clear what the relationship will be between the Royal Commission and the Natural Environment Research Council? In view of the rôle being given to the Commission to examine the adequacy of research, will it be able to override the decisions of the Natural Environment Research Council, and what is to be its relationship with the Council for Scientific Policy?

The Prime Minister: The Natural Environment Research Council, as the

hon. Member knows, is, of course, a grant-awarding body but also does research into particular forms of pollution, and, indeed, many non-pollution questions, affecting environment. It will be the Commission's responsibility to draw together and co-ordinate the general research effort, going far beyond the research councils in this matter and, as I say, particularly to alert any research council or other bodies particularly when a new problem arises. One of the problems now about pollution, as we have seen more and more, and even during the past year, is that a sudden problem, be it effluent or anything else, causes sudden and great concern, with a lot of death around our coasts or elsewhere. Quick action is needed and the Royal Commission will be the means of providing that, with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Driberg: Since this is largely an international problem, can my right hon. Friend say what machinery there will be for consultation with U.N.E.S.C.O. and other bodies concerned? Has he seen the somewhat disturbing report of the conference of American ecological scientists a fortnight ago, whose conclusions seemed to be that the prospects for the survival of the human race till the end of this century are rather slender?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We have, of course, had many exchanges with the United States on these questions. It is not only U.N.E.S.C.O. but a number of United Nations specialist agencies, particularly, of course, the World Health Organisation and the F.A.O., which are concerned with this. My hon. Friend, with his concern about international coordination, will, I know, be following with great care the work next week of the European conservation meeting which is to be held here in London and at which my right hon. Friend will be making a speech.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: With regard to noise, the right hon. Gentleman has announced the setting up of a council analogous with the Clean Air Council. Would he not agree that what is required is not so much research as action, since there are already a substantial number of recommendations in the Wilson Report not implemented? Can he and his right hon. Friend expedite action in this important field?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we did take action, within a few weeks of coming into office, on some of the most important recommendations of the Wilson Report, though, of course, right hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to do so when in power. It has made a difference, at rather high cost, to a large number of people. There are still, of course, these problems.
I think that the analogy with the Clean Air Council is right. It is not only a question of research, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. Before the Clean Air Council, which helped to get action, was set up, many of the facts were already known from the research which had been done. I hope that it will be the same with the council on noise.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of noise, is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us on the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee who heard the Vice-Chancellor of Loughborough arguing in favour of an advisory council on this important subject welcome his announcement? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the American Government have made a grant of 50 million dollars to firms such as Pratt and Whitney for research to reduce noise, and that it will be difficult for this country to sell aero engines if our competitors sell comparatively noiseless engines? Will he consider the proposal which has been put to the Ministry of Technology by Rolls-Royce?

The Prime Minister: There is a considerable amount of work going on by both the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology about aircraft noise. On the general question—and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it—he will be aware that what I have announced goes beyond an advisory council. In addition to the Royal Commission, which is a standing Commission, we have the executive, co-ordinating function of my right hon. Friend and his scientific research unit.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that what he has announced is a somewhat elaborate advisory system in connection with the Secretary of State's co-ordinating function, and that what he has not announced is a clear definition

of Ministerial responsibility and method of taking action, particularly in urgent matters of crisis? This was recommended after the "Torrey Canyon" affair; it was demanded after the death of the sea birds; it was required after the dead seals episode. It is still lacking.
Will the Prime Minister, therefore, give attention to the need for a small action group, of scientists and others, which could be set up at comparatively small expense in order to deal quickly with these affairs? The reason he has not been able to gain information, for instance, about marine life, is that action is not taken soon enough after evidence becomes available.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. What he is suggesting is exactly what I have announced, a small group, an effective group, of scientists reporting directly to my right hon. Friend, and which can go straight into action when it finds a case such as, for example, diseased fish off Deal—go straight into action, and, through the responsible research committee or responsible Government Department, get cracking on it. It would be very silly to separate responsibility in this from, for instance, those responsible for fish at the Ministry of Agriculture, and their fishery research centres. But I agree that we need somebody to spark them off in some of these cases. There is now one Minister unequivocally responsible in this field, both in emergency and in long-term problems. We did not have that, I think, under the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister, in his own statement, said that the staff of the Secretary of State is to assist him in the co-ordinating rôle. He did not say that they themselves are to take the action required. May we now be assured by the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State's own staff will, in fact, take action themselves—go to the scene, make the necessary inquiries—with great urgency?

The Prime Minister: I cannot think of anything more bureaucratic, more expensive, or more ineffective. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that my right hon. Friend should have a staff capable of going straight to Deal to look at diseased cod, or to deal with every


single problem there, he is suggesting what would be a very great waste of Government resources. We have got the scientists. We want to make sure that they are deployed quickly on new problems. This is the job of the Minister in charge. I am not suggesting that he should take over from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture responsibility in fishery matters—

The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I would make a very good job of it.

The Prime Minister: —nor, I am sure, is the right hon. Gentleman—if we could get rid of this unholy alliance of representatives of fishing ports!
The right hon. Gentleman refers to lack of co-ordination in the "Torrey Canyon" affair. Of course, there were different problems. One was dealing with the oil slick itself. Another was mobilising the local authorities to deal with it. There was, third, the question of the oyster fisheries in Cornwall. These are things which must be done by Departments. All this was co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary as the Chairman of the Emergencies Committee.
Under this new arrangement my right hon. Friend has the duty, both of dealing with the emergency and of getting the research started quickly, and he has also the responsibility for seeing that adequate co-ordination on long-term research into these problems is done.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business; of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—Opposition Motion of censure on Capital Punishment.
Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, the Cumberland County Council Order, and on the West Riding County Council Order.
TUESDAY, 16TH DECEMBER—Debate on a Motion relating to the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965.
Motions on the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations and on the Sunday Entertainments Order relating to Burnham-on-Crouch.
WEDNESDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—Motions on the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, (Commencement of Part II) Order and on the Restrictive Trade Practices (Information Agreements) Order.
THURSDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—SeCOnd Reading of the Ports Bill.
Motions relating to Members Expenses, etc., and the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order.
FRIDAY, 19TH DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment until Monday, 19th January, 1970.

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House say what proposal he has for the debate on public expenditure? As it is not to be taken next week, and will be taken presumably some time after the Recess, will it be possible to have a two-day debate?

Mr. Peart: I shall be making an announcement next week, and will consider this very sympathetically. There is force in what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Dickens: Am I to understand that the debate on Thursday on the Motion on Members' expenses will last for only 1½ hours, or will it last longer than that?

Mr. Peart: Yes.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order. Would my right hon. Friend be a little more explicit?

Mr. Peart: May I say now, "No, Sir."

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Procedure recommended that before Christmas there should be a two-day debate on public expenditure, on which there was general agreement on an all-party basis? Is not he disregarding that recommendation because of the pressure


on the Home Secretary to clear up the question of his resignation before Christmas?

Mr. Peart: The House will appreciate that I gave a sympathetic answer to the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a statement next week.

Mr. Sheldon: May I press my right hon. Friend to look at this sympathetically? It is absurd that we should spend 15 to 20 days discussing how to raise £20,000 million and only one day on how we spend it.

Mr. Peart: I have expressed sympathy for this view, and I cannot go beyond that.

Sir Ian On-Ewing: Will the right hon Gentleman find time for the House to discuss the appalling travelling conditions on the Northern Line, caused by the strike of maintenance men? Almost a million people try to travel to and from cur constituencies on the line, and they have endured for 12 weeks insufferable conditions. Could the House debate this before we go away for Christmas?

Mr. Peart: No, Sir.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great anxiety arising from the pricing policies now being discussed by manufacturers on the changeover to decimal currency, which are bound to increase the cost of living? Is he further aware that manufacturers and distributors are completely ignoring the advice given to them by the Government? Will he therefore consider letting us have an early debate on this subject?

Mr. Peart: I cannot promise a debate, but I will have the matter looked into.

Mr. Rossi: The Leader of the House last week was kind enough to say that he would refer to the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity a request to discuss the inter-union dispute which is causing the difficulty on the London Underground. Did he convey that request? Is he aware that conditions are getting very much worse? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement during the coming week?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that I always convey the views

of hon. Members on both sides of the House. When I give an assurance I stand by it. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend, and will consult her.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The House understands that the matter of Ten-Minute Rule Bills is being referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, but what has my right hon. Friend to say about the position during the present Session? Will this matter be clarified either next week or the week after, as difficulties are arising due to the present procedure?

Mr. Peart: Hon. Members have Bills down for next week. I think that we must await the report of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Thorpe: Since next Tuesday is the date by which any person over the age of 16 years and nine months must register for a vote, and since there is general support for the efforts which the Home Secretary has been making to give widespread publicity to the necessity for registration, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary on whether he might make a further announcement between now and Tuesday and so take an opportunity to give further publicity to this important issue?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that advertisements on this matter appear daily in the Press. My right hon. Friend, who is here with me today, will note what has been said.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to a suggestion which I made last week that, so as to find time for vital subjects such as the Middle East and public expenditure to be discussed by the House, we should sit for two more days before Christmas and resume three days earlier?

Mr. Peart: Hon. Members have not made that representation to me.

Mr. Berry: Is the Leader of the House aware of the grave danger of a major disruption in travelling arrangements in London on 1st January? Londoners have had a great deal of trouble during the past few months. While I appreciate that talks are being held, if it appears likely that a strike will occur, will he give an assurance that the Minister will make a statement?

Mr. Peart: I will take this up with the Minister concerned.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is now 18 months since the Ronan Point disaster, and there has been no settlement of this issue. Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Minister will make a statement on this next week?

Mr. Peart: I will make representations to my right hon. Friend on the matter.

Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentle-many say why the Government think it necessary to try to rush Parliament into taking a decision on capital punishment with barely one week's notice?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman should await the debate.

Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House on the scope of the debate on Monday? Will hon. Members be able to make the speeches they might have wished to make on Tuesday? Is not it strange that we should discuss a Motion of censure on a matter which will be decided by a free vote of the House?

Mr. Peart: No, I do not think it is. After all, the Opposition have chosen this subject, as is their right and prerogative. How the debate is conducted is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Sir F. Bennett: Is the Leader of the House aware that I twice telephoned to the Foreign Office this morning to draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the fact that he had given misleading and wholly inaccurate answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and myself on Monday and Wednesday about diplomatic missions in Rhodesia? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement?

Mr. Peart: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had telephoned twice to the Foreign Secretary. I will have a word with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend find out if we are likely to get a further document on the restructuring of the National Health Service next week?

Mr. Peart: I will, but I cannot promise it next week.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is considerable concern on both sides of the House about the treatment of the debate on public expenditure? The report, which was unanimous, recommended that there should be a two-day debate before Christmas because that is the proper time to have it. What the right hon. Gentleman suggests is not good enough.

Mr. Peart: I have explained that the arrangement for the debate was altered because of pressure of business. As replied to the Leader of the Opposition, I will make an announcement next week during Business Question time. I have said that I will consider sympathetically a two-day debate.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend give an intelligible reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), using more than monosyllables?

Mr. Peart: I do not know what my hon. Friend is trying to prove, but his sense of humour does not appeal to me.

Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity makes a statement next week before I raise the subject of the inter-union dispute at Acton in the Adjournment on Friday?

Mr. Peart: I will make representations, as I said earlier.

Mr. Marquand: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be much better to have a two-day debate on public expenditure after the Recess than a one-day debate before? Will he give an assurance that the two-day debate will come very soon after the Recess?

Mr. Peart: I accept the pressure that has been put on me for a two-day debate when we return after the Recess and I said that I would make a statement.

Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the Motion standing in my name dealing with the problem of transferring the teaching of the mentally handicapped from the Ministry of Health and Social Security to the Ministry of Education and Science?

[That, in the opinion of this House, a decision on the future education of mentally-handicapped children and the status


and function of future staff now in training is urgent.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that young teachers who are being trained to teach the mentally handicapped feel that, because they have not been given an answer by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman has let them down very badly? Indeed, I am still waiting for an answer from the Prime Minister to the representations that I have made. What is the position, and how will it be dealt with? The present state of affairs is not fair to young teachers, who should not be left without a response from the Government.

Mr. Peart: I assure the hon. Lady that I am taking careful note of her views. There is agreement with her general point of view, but the answer to her question is, "Not next week".

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that there will be a debate on the question of hon. Member's expenses for only 1½ hours next week?

Mr. Peart: I said that that was so.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the First Secretary has apparently declined to make a statement today about the presentation of her prices and incomes policy, which was published earlier, her hon. Friend the Minister of State is apparently holding a briefing conference later this afternoon for foreign Press correspondents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—at which questions will be asked? Is not this another example of the contempt with which the Government hold the House of Commons?

Mr. Peart: On the contrary. I am often accused of allowing too many statements to be made in the House. There is a White Paper and the subject will be debated next week.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: While my right hon. Friend does not approve of shortening the Christmas Recess, may I ask him to recognise that the situation in the Middle East should be debated very soon after Christmas?

Mr. Peart: I have taken note of the views of hon. Members on this subject.

We had a foreign affairs debate very recently.

Mr. Maker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister said, when answering a question from me some minutes ago, that the adverse trade balance with the Soviet Union was narrowing rather than widening? I believe that the Prime Minister was misinformed. Would the right hon. Gentleman approach his right hon. Friend and ask him to look into the matter and, if he was wrong, to correct the record next week?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that that arises on business, but I will have the matter looked into.

Mr. Biffen: So that we may know the true strength of the number of paper tigers below the Gangway opposite, would the right hon. Gentleman make an early statement indicating whether or not the debate on Wednesday about activating Part II of the 1966 Act will be treated as a matter of confidence by the Government?

Mr. Peart: That is not a matter for me to answer now.

Captain W. Elliot: is there any constitutional or procedural reason why the issue of capital punishment should be settled next week?

Mr. Peart: I suggest that hon. Members should await the debate and hear the arguments that the Minister will deploy.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that the last occasion on which we debated any aspect of Welsh affairs in Parliament was on 14th May, in the Welsh Grand Committee, seven months ago, and that if there is not a debate before next year at least nine months, or three quarters of a year, will have passed without these affairs having been discussed? Why are the Government so anxious to hide their Welsh record? Cannot we debate this subject next week?

Mr. Peart: There is no attempt to dodge Welsh Affairs. There will be opportunities in Committee after the Recess.

Mr. Waddington: Would the right hon. Gentleman have another shot at answering a question that has been put twice in


previous weeks? Will there be a general debate on the proposals made by the Beeching Commission in regard to the assizes and quarter sessions system before legislation is introduced in the House?

Mr. Peart: I appreciate that views have been expressed on this subject, but I cannot promise what the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Speed: Will a statement be made next week by either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) about helicopter flights in Biafra?

Mr. Peart: I accept that this is an important matter. I have noted the views of hon. Members on it and there is also a Motion on the subject. I will make representations about this.

Mr. David Steel: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who serve on the Select Committee on Services are responsible to the House as a whole? Since we made a unanimous report last summer about hon. Members' services, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that a 1½hour debate next week on a Government Motion will be no substitute for a full debate by the House on one of its Committee's reports?

Mr. Peart: I have answered that question.

Mr. Snow: Whatever may be the attitude to the suggestion of having helicopter flights in Biafra, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we hope that there will be some quick action on this matter which, if it is not initiated by hon. Gentleman opposite—according to The Times this suggestion originally came from.American sources—we would still consider to be a matter of importance.

Mr. Peart: I said that I would make representations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and that I will do.

MEMBERS' FACILITIES

4.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Mr. Speaker, with your per-

mission and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on facilities for Members.
On 24th July, I announced to the House the Government's acceptance on several of the recommendations made in the Sixth Report of the Services Committee. I also announced the Government's acceptance in principle of the Committee's recommendation that provision should be made at public expense for secretarial assistance to Members.
Since then, I have consulted many Members about the arrangements for secretarial assistance which they would find most convenient and efficient. The great majority of Members wish to continue to make their own personal arrangements. Many Members stressed the confidential nature of the work, and the obvious advantages of having secretarial assistance familiar with their personal and constituency arrangements.
In the light of these replies, the Government have concluded that Members should continue to be able to make their own arrangements for secretarial assistance. The Government have, however, given careful and detailed consideration to what assistance from public funds should be provided towards Members' costs for this aspect of their parliamentary expenses.
The House will recall that in my statement of 24th July, I drew attention to the relation between the improvement of facilities and the level of Members' salaries, and I announced then that the Government considered that the whole question of Members' remuneration should be referred to the N.B.P.I., or its successor, during the next Parliament. Any further contribution to parliamentary expenses proposed now, therefore, would be of an interim nature, until the whole question of remuneration of Members is reviewed.
Against this background, and recognising that the present basis of Members' remuneration already takes some account of secretarial expenses, the Government propose that Members should be able to claim an allowance for secretarial assistance of up to £500 per annum.
The allowance will be payable on a quarterly basis, beginning with the quarter ending on 31st December, 1969. It will be payable only in respect of secretarial expenses actually incurred during


the period for which a claim is made; and in making expenses claims to the Inland Revenue, Members will, of course, need to continue to substantiate expenditure of at least the amount claimed in the same way as they do for other expenses.
In the Government's view, this proposed new allowance marks a significant further step forward in the improvements of Members' facilities. I recognise that this sum will by no means meet the costs of those Members who employ a secretary full-time in their parliamentary duties. But it will be a considerable contribution to the secretarial expenses incurred by a substantial majority of Members.
I should also like to make an announcement on Members' car allowances. The Government propose that the present car allowance of 4½d. a mile should be increased to 6d. a mile. This follows the basis for calculating the car allowance adopted in the Lawrence Report, and broadly reflects the average cost of first-class rail travel. As at present, it is not directly related to the cost of actual car expenses. Such a change of basis will also have to await the overall review of remuneration.
In addition, the Government propose a number of changes to improve and rationalise our present travel arrangements. For example, it is proposed that payment of the car allowance should in future be made, in certain circumstances, when a car is used on a Member's behalf rather than by the Member himself, such as when it is driven back home from a Member's local railway station after the Member has himself continued his journey by train.
The Motion required to give effect to the proposals which I have just announced will be brought before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House make clear that these matters have been considered from time to time by the Services Committee and that, on the whole, it has been unanimous that this kind of step should be taken towards improving facilities for Members?
Concerning what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested today, is he aware that the method of approach will, on the whole, be welcome?
As to the amounts, on the one hand there are some Members, though not many, who think that nothing should be done and, on the other, there are others who think that much more should be done, particularly regarding the mileage allowance? But as this is an interim measure, perhaps the House would be wise to accept it, on the whole, as a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I should like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the Services Committee. I recognise that many hon. Members wish that it was a higher amount. However, this is a beginning—an interim measure.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the efficiency of a Member of Parliament depends largely on the secretarial assistance which he has and that he cannot obtain the secretarial assistance he requires, if he is to do his work as he should, if the allowance is only £500 a year?

Mr. Peart: I accept this; but my right hon. Friend will appreciate that this is the first time that we have made this breakthrough.

Sir R. Cary: Concerning the £500 a year allowance for secretaries, surely many of us are already making that sort of claim for ordinary expenses to the taxation authorities.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. The Fees Office will be sending out a circular about this matter.

Mr. C. Pannell: Whatever may be said about the secretarial allowance, is my right hon. Friend aware that nobody who knows anything about these matters will accuse the House of being generous to itself?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the car allowance is absolutely derisory? Neither the smallest local authority in the country, nor the most parsimonious firm would pay executives in the £3,000 a year class an allowance on this minimum scale.

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend knows the problem and the recommendation of the Lawrence Committee. As I have said, there should be a major review. This is an interim award.

Dr. Winstanley: How can the Leader of the House reconcile his statement that Members' remuneration already takes account of their expenses when he knows that in many cases their expenses totally consume their remuneration? Is it maintained that a Member needs only half a secretary and that a Member's motoring costs precisely half that of a civil servant's?

Mr. Peart: I would remind the House that this is the recommended basis in the Lawrence Report. The hon. Gentleman has had conversations with me, quite rightly, and I appreciate that from his paint of view he would wish for a higher sum. But in the circumstances, when he examines this more fully, I think that he will agree that it is a good beginning.

Mr. Dickens: While any improvements to the pathetically low level of services available to Members is welcome, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that many of us will feel that he and the Cabinet have failed to fully implement the recommendations of the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services?
As the Treasury is paying secretaries between £950 and £1,250 per annum, does my right hon. Friend recognise that to offer Members of Parliament £500 is a gross insult to this House and its Members?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. Indeed, if many of my colleagues, including myself, had not pushed this matter forward, we would not have had the statement that I have made today.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As the mileage allowance figure was fixed by Lawrence long time ago and as the cost of petrol has gone up considerably since, is it not childish that Members of Parliament should get less than civil servants or any businessmen?

Mr. Peart: I have explained this matter in detail and referred to the Lawrence Report. Hon. Members know all about the details.

Mr. Tomney: In view of the complexities of the car allowance, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can recommend to me a good accountant?

Mr. Peart: I am sure that my hon. Friend, whom I know very well, can make that decision himself.

Mr. Crouch: As one who gave evidence before the Services Committee some time ago, and now enjoys free postage and the advantage of a telephone, I should like to say "Thank you" to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whilst this goes some way towards solving the problem, some hon. Members have been forced to ask their secretaries to be self-employed because they were not able to pay S.E.T. and the insurance?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that many secretaries have not been guaranteed full payment for holidays or sickness? Will he, therefore, look into the whole question again for the future? Does he also agree that the time has come when secretaries who work for hon. Members should be placed in the position of secretaries outside in industry and elsewhere?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend. Indeed, many hon. Members have written to me about it. But, as I have said, there will be a major review at another period.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not this an increase to those who exhaust the whole of their £3,000 salary on expenses, but practically no increase to those who charge their secretaries' expenses on their income tax in the normal way as part of their salary? Is not this giving to those who have and taking away from those who have not?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will wait until the circular comes out from the Fees Office.

Mr. Hawkins: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for the fight which he has obviously put on behalf of Members. I have no doubt that it was a hard fight. However, he must recognise that a large number of people who know the cost of motoring will realise that it is derisory to put up the allowance from 4½d. to 6d. a mile.

Mr. Peart: As I have said, this was really the basis which Lawrence recommended, but it will be reviewed later.

Mr. Conlan: Whilst paying tribute to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, will he understand that to replace one inadequate sum with another is not justified?


The increase from 4½d. to 6d. a mile will not be of great help to Members in doing their work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has already compared this with the sums paid to local and national government officers.
Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that Members have clawed back by the Treasury up to one-third of the allowance in income tax?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. However, this is an advance. I would never regard that as defeat.

Mr. Fortescue: Has the Leader of the House taken into account the effect of today's announcement on the attitude of mind of teachers and nurses in their present pay claims?

Mr. Heffer: What has that to do with it?

Mr. Peart: We must look at the increase that I have announced in terms of improved efficiency of services to Members.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of the difficulties that he has clearly had, many Members will think that he has done a very good job, will be grateful for all the improvements that have taken place over the last few months, and that many of us say Thank you".

Mr. Peart: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the Leader of the House aware that the difference between cost and allowance will bear particularly hardly on Members with large and scattered constituencies which are now to be perpetuated?

Mr. Peart: I accept this. I have a large constituency, like many other hon. Members. But this interim award will, in the circumstances, be helpful.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his partial success in battling with the Treasury, may I ask whether any secretaries employed by the Treasury receive £500 a year or less and whether any of them receive 6d. a mile car allowance? Did my right hon. Friend take into account the House of Commons Motoring Club's

facts and figures before he came to this decision?
Lastly, why is my right hon. Friend wedded to Lawrence? That was years ago. He does not have to stick to it. The Government can decide what they want. They can ignore the Treasury and make the decision.

Mr. Peart: That would be a nice easy solution, but I have had wide consultation, including consultation with the Motoring Club.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend not acknowledge that many people feel that there should be an end to the principle adopted by the Lawrence Committee of paying hon. Members on the basis that the less they do the more they get, and that Members who work in this place should be remunerated accordingly? In that respect this proposal does not meet the recommendations of the Select Committee. Could he say what will happen about the £500? Will there be yearly adjustment of the figure, otherwise in 12 or 18 months' time hon. Members will be placed in a difficult position.

Mr. Peart: On the wider issue, I know that many hon. Members feel that Lawrence was not the right standard on which to judge the matter. As I have said, the whole question of remuneration expenses, etc. should be considered at a later period. This is an interim award and my statement is in that sense an interim statement. I believe that my hon. Friend need not worry about the other matter. I feel that it will be satisfactory.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in view of the incidence of income tax, a sum paid to a secretary of more than £340 a year will still have to be paid out of the hon. Member's salary? Could my right hon. Friend say what percentage of the increase he expects the Inland Revenue to claw back? Will it not be a substantial percentage?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the first point. The second point depends on the circumstances.

Mr. Gardner: Although we appreciate the fight put up by my right hon. Friend, did he take into account in coming to the decision the kinds of services available to members of other legislatures, particularly those in smaller countries? Is


he also aware that a great deal of unfairness will still exist since wealthy hon. Members will be able to get back four or five times the amount in income tax?

Mr. Peart: All the facts mentioned by my hon. Friend were taken into account.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman said that the amount clawed back by the Inland Revenue will depend on circumstances. Does that mean that the £500 is liable to tax?

Mr. Peart: Yes, the allowance is a deduction from expenses incurred. The balance will be allowable for tax purposes subject to the normal rules.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I thank the Leader of the House for the fight which he has put up? Would he suggest to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury that a solution might be found to the problem of car allowances by allowing Members of Parliament to buy their fuel tax-free, as English diplomats are allowed to do in foreign countries?

Mr. Peart: That is another matter.

Mr. Thorpe: Has it occurred to the Leader of the House that, in view of all the exchanges which have taken place today, 1½ hours might be a little short for the debate next week?

Mr. Peart: I think that hon. Members have effectively put their points of view today.

Mr. Walden: While sincerely thanking my right hon. Friend for his efforts, would he bear in mind the context in which he has had to make his statement when thinking of future consultations? Can nothing be done to get rid of the iniquitous system whereby Parliament itself has to determine the level of its own salaries and allowances?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point, but it embraces a wider issue.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: My right hon. Friend will recollect stating that the £500 would meet the secretarial expenses of a substantial number of hon. Members. On what evidence does he base that statement? Has he undertaken a survey to determine the secretarial expenses of hon. Members?

Mr. Peart: It has been done by contact with hon. Members and points made in correspondence with them.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a number of hon. Members proposed that Members of Parliament should be treated in the same way as civil servants or members of Her Majesty's Government? In this way no money would pass through our hands, but a secretary would be appointed for us, hon. Members would then give their secretaries a form at the end of the month, and the Treasury would pay their salary.
This surely should be done, rather than to put hon. Members in a position in which nominally there is provision for £500 to pay a salary which, on the most favourable terms, will mean a sum of only £340. The public will get the wrong impression since they will think that the whole £500 is to be provided for secretarial purposes when, in fact, after payments to the Inland Revenue, the amount will be only £340.

Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add. Indeed, the original proposal in my hon. Friend's question would not be acceptable to many of my colleagues.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd.
I informed the House on 19th June of the arrangements the Shipbuilding Industry Board was making to provide assistance under the Shipbuilding Industry Act to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd.—[Vol. 785, c. 721–6.]
This action has not yet restored the confidence of suppliers and customers to the extent necessary to enable the company to carry on its business on a satisfactory long-term basis. The Shipbuilding Industry Board does not consider that it would be justified in present circumstances in providing further help to the company out of the funds available to it under the Shipbuilding Industry Act.
However, the company has been seeking ways of improving its position in recent months, and to allow it a further


period in which to show results the Government have decided to introduce fresh legislation to provide assistance to this company by way of loans not exceeding £7 million and, if necessary, guarantees of completion in the case of new orders of particular and immediate value to the company because they are for early completion.
Any funds required immediately for such loans will be provided in the first instance from the Civil Contingencies Fund; a Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to the House at the appropriate stage.
While we are seeking to provide financial help to the company outside the Shipbuilding Industry Act, this will be related to the continuing process of reorganising and strengthening the shipbuilding industry, particularly on the Clyde, with a view to improving its productivity and future prospects. I am in close touch with the Shipbuilding Industry Board which is actively considering what further measures may prove desirable to that end.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I see a number of hon. Members rising, and would remind the House that there is a good deal of business to be dealt with.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the Minister aware that his statement is very disquieting, since it appears to be contrary to the arrangements and the forecast in his statement on 19th June? As the subject cannot be dealt with adequately by questions and answers now, and since legislation is to be introduced, will the Minister confirm that there will be an early opportunity for a debate, when we can consider, for example, what commitments guarantees of completion could entail and the implications of the Shipbuilding Industry Board's decision to do no more?
Does the Minister recognise that the picture of the whole of the Clyde must be considered, especially the Lower Clyde group, which is successfully building and selling ships without needing Government help? Have the earlier plans of the Government for a rationalisation and reorganisation of the labour force in the

area been altered, or is this still considered essential, as I believe it to be, for orderly progress towards a satisfactory solution?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has raised many questions. When the legislation comes forward, there will be an opportunity to debate this matter. As for possible conflict with the statement which I made in June, we said then, with the assent of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, that it would look at the situation in the light of progress made early next year, which is a few weeks away.
It is true that the Shipbuilding Industry Board, having considered this matter, does not feel it to be right within the remit of the Shipbuilding Industry Act to give further help. However, I am bound to take into account the matters which the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate yesterday, namely, the wider social and economic considerations, which the House will want to debate when the Bill comes forward.
As for the future development of shipbuilding on the Clyde as a whole, I have made reference in the last paragraph of my statement to this matter. The House knows that I have always taken the view that the sooner one gets to the point of considering the river as a whole in shipbuilding terms the beter it will be.

Mr. Small: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the support that he is giving to the region. Can he say whether he has taken regional employment prospects fully into account in making his statement?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a chance to underline this because, apart from the points which I made in my earlier answers, under the reorganisation of government since the summer I have acquired fresh responsibilities in the regional industrial field, and this reinforces me in my judgment that it was right to provide this further help.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been a substantial increase in productivity in U.C.S. since June, when the first loan was given? Can he confirm that the board will continue to guarantee shipbuilding credits for new orders in the future? Finally, does the right hon.


Gentleman agree that this loan of £7 million makes the total amount loaned to the U.C.S. £12 million, which the company says was the minimum that it requires to put the yards in order?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman leaves out of account the necessity that fell to me earlier in the year to bring home to the company and the unions the need to take measures which have been taken since the summer. Indeed, had they not been taken I should not have felt able to come forward with this proposal.
The S.I.B. remains entirely concerned with this company and with shipbuilding on the Clyde, and will be keeping in touch with it in the normal way. In addition, I shall obviously require progress reports in view of the sums of money involved.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we appreciate this continuing interest by the Government in the difficulties of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Will he also agree that it seems to many of us that the Opposition cannot make up their mind whether they want a successful U.C.S.? The impression being created in my mind is that there is a strong Conservative lobby from the Lower Clyde shipbuilders. Will he confirm that private enterprise failed to find the capital that was required for U.C.S. during the recent trouble?

Mr. Senn: The problems of this industry and this company are so formidable that I do not think I should like to add to my tasks the responsibility of reading the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom, during difficult periods, have been helpful to me in dealing with the problems involved.
I think that everybody who knows about the background of Upper Clyde and the difficulties that it experienced will recognise that it was to some extent a special case. There are 13,000 people working in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, in an area where there is more than 6 per cent. male unemployment. However, one wants to give the best chance of survival to those from other shipbuilding areas and to see that they are not damaged. I readily assure the House that I shall be watching this with that consideration very much in mind.

Sir Keith Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that U.C.S. was the result of a merger—which was bitterly opposed by some of its members, but forced through by the Government—of some successful and some not so successful shipbuilding companies? Secondly, will he tell the House why the S.I.B. has evidently washed its hands of any further money for the Upper Clyde? Thirdly, will he say whether it is true that £20 million of taxpayers' money has already been made available to U.C.S.? Fourthly, what is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of what the completion guarantee which he has provided this afternoon might cost the taxpayers in due course?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman's first question about a merger being forced through against the will of those involved is another way of saying that if the Government had done nothing there would have been a major tragedy of the Clyde. There would have been a very serious tragedy there, and in other areas in the country where Government assistance has been provided with rather less publicity because it has contributed towards earlier profitability. The rôle of Government in this has been successful in the sense that British shipbuilding has the biggest order book for 10 years. There is a shipbuilding boom in the world, with the British share of that boom being very high—higher than it was at any time under the policy of the previous Conservative Government.
On the second point, about the Shipbuilding Industry Board having washed its hands of the matter, I do not think that that is the right presentation of what has happened. It has said that on strict shipbuilding industry grounds, taking into account the total sum given to it by Parliament, it would not have been right itself to have put more into this group. In view of the wider economic, regional, and Scottish considerations, to which the party opposite devoted a whole debate yesterday, we thought it necessary to go in and contribute towards giving this company the opportunity of proving its capability in the future. I am sure that when the House debates the matter it will decide that that was the right decision.
On the totality of the sums involved, I have referred to the £7 million today,


the sums already received amount to £5½ million in grant, and £7·7 million in loans or equity. The future completion guarantee relates to completion against the risk of insolvency and is limited to that. It is not a general guarantee which goes wider than is strictly necessary to deal with the problem of confidence, which has been one of the major difficulties faced by the U.C.S.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Linthouse Shipyard ceased building ships 1,600 men who would normally automatically have become unemployed were absorbed by the Govan division of U.C.S., giving it an uneconomic labour force? Despite that, it has carried on successfully but is finding it difficult to make ends meet because of the lack of money and the heavy load that it is carrying. Therefore, the step which my right hon. Friend has taken now will be widely welcomed and is one of the wisest things that he has done during this difficult period on Clyde-side.

Mr. Benn: I think that it would have been wrong to have allowed confidence issues to kill U.C.S. before it had the opportunity to prove the value of the changes that it has carried through. I know that my hon. Friend has been saying this in his constituency, but I remind him, nevertheless, that this does not mean that the company has any less responsibility to raise its productivity. Indeed, to avoid the dangers about which hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, it is essential that productivity continues to rise in U.C.S.

Mr. Russell Johnston: While welcoming the safeguarding of employment in U.C.S., because the right hon. Gentleman must be concerned about the position, may I ask him whether he has confidence in the management? In particular, can he say whether the order book is estimated to make a profit, and whether that profit will cover loan interest charges and capital repayments? If it does not, it will create yet another difficult situation in a short time.

Mr. Benn: I think that the House knows that there were management changes in the summer. I am happy to express our confidence in the new arrangements that have been made.
One of the difficulties which the company has had this year, and it is a difficulty which has made things extremely hard for it, is that during the long months of public discussion about the finances of the company the problem of getting orders or supplies on credit during the normal course of business made worse a situation which was in any case difficult for the new group.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who represent suppliers such as the foundry industry throughout Scotland and the North of England are deeply grateful for his dialogue and the trouble that he has taken, and are appalled at the double thinking of the Opposition today and yesterday? Can my right hon. Friend say something about the terms of the request that he has had on the issue of the Civil Contingencies Fund?

Mr. Benn: It is not a request. All that I was announcing was that pending the legislation, payments would be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund. I do not think that there is any special novelty in that. That is the procedure normally adopted by Governments. When they come forward and announce prospective legislation, they have to announce their interim arrangements. This is exactly the same as was done by the party opposite.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now try to persuade his right hon. Friends to back those parts of the Upper Clyde yard which wish to tender but cannot do so because there is insufficient underwriting of whatever offers they have to make to foreign countries? This is obviously a great impediment in filling order books. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to put pressure on other Government Departments to show confidence in this matter?

Mr. Benn: That was exactly the object of my statement, to make it clear that those who were holding back from placing orders solely on the grounds of anxiety about the existence of the company could set their fears at rest. As for the guarantees, these are designed solely to meet that point.

Dame Irene Ward: I come from another shipbuilding area which has had a lot of assistance from both sides of the House. Is this not a purely political


decision? How has the statement been received by other shipbuilding rivers? In the total context of organising our shipbuilding, which is essential, it is important that we should know what the whole of the industry in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland think about this decision. It is very important if we take what has happened on Tyneside, where there is continual unemployment in shipbuilding, or on the Wear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the issue. The hon. Lady must make her question brief.

Dame Irene Ward: I support that view, but Scotland always has a special privileged position compared with other parts of the country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must support my view in practice.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady kindly recognises the fact that her part of the country has received help from the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and I can think of some special cases where very special measures were taken. For example, there was the Furness Shipyard, which was brought into a group when it would otherwise have been lost to the industry.
Having said what she has, the hon. Lady will know the value of Government help provided for structural change of this kind; she will know that to lose from the United Kingdom a part of our shipbuilding capability at a time when the world boom in orders is growing and continuing to offer us good prospects would not be good for the British shipbuilding industry. These factors should reassure her, particularly since she knows as well as I do that it would be folly on the part of the Government—and they do not intend to do this—to use one part of their policy to undermine new-found strength in other areas.
The hon. Lady asks: was this a political decision? It was a decision taken by the Government arising out of social and economic needs, and to that extent exactly compatible with the purpose of Parliament, which is to reach decisions based on assessments of the realities of the situation.

Dame Irene Ward: Answer the other questions.

Mr. Tilney: Since this is likely to prove unfair to Merseyside, particularly to Cammell Laird, who have lost the nuclear contract, could the Minister say that, if need be, a similar loan will be made available to Cammell Laird?

Mr. Dalyell: What about directing nuclear orders to Cammell Laird?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) knows the basis upon which the policy was presented to Parliament and went through with general assent. When the new Bill conies forward, it will be open to the hon. Gentleman and others to argue whether it was right to have decided upon these special measures. I regard this as being in the context of regional policy, with a very strong shipbuilding interest.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the day.

DIVISION LIST (CORRECTION)

Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order. I would like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, 9th December, c. 371. While the printing of the OFFICIAL REPORT is normally beyond question, I would like to assure you and the House that I did not vote with the Government on Tuesday evening, as printed.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have already made arrangements for a corrigendum. I am sure that it embarrasses hon. Gentlemen on either side to be recorded as voting in the other Lobby.

BILL PRESENTED

AMENDMENT OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, supported by Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, Mr. Stanley McMaster, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. Rees-Davies, and Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, presented a Bill to enable the House of Commons to amend certain Statutory Instruments, and to alter the definition of the period during which either House may entertain prayers that Statutory Instruments be annulled: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising on Friday, 19th December, do adjourn till Monday, 19th January.—[Mr. Shore.]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I would like to give one or two reasons why I believe that the House, although it may adjourn for the Christmass Recess on 19th December, should come back long before 19th January. Although I had several reasons for this before I rose, I have been given a further important reason by the statement made a few moments ago by the Minister of Technology about this further loan of many millions of pounds to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
Near my constituency, in Leicestershire, there is a firm of aircraft manufacturers, who make an excellent light aircraft called the Beagle aircraft. As the Minister will know, it has recently gone into liquidation. The Government have declined to give any financial support, and before this House adjourns, or at any rate as soon as it comes back after Christmas, an opportunity should be given for hon. Members who represent hundreds of workers of this company to debate this matter in the House and to see whether some action can be taken at the eleventh hour to save this excellent light aircraft.
The liberality of the Government towards Upper Clyde Shipbuilders—and they have been very liberal indeed with the taxpayers' money, handing out almost £20 million so far—compares poorly with their niggly attitude towards the Beagle Aircraft Company. One of my hon. Friends has suggested that the reason why the Government have been so liberal towards Upper Clyde Shipbuilders might be a political one. I have not suggested that. But I do say that it is a possibility, and no more, that one of the reasons why the Government have been so niggardly and uncooperative and uninterested in the Beagle Company is political. They believe that people in the area could get work elsewhere and, since we are buying most of our aircraft, certainly military aircraft, from America, we might as well com-

plete the job and buy the lot there, including light aircraft.
The Beagle is an absolutely first-class machine. It has been exported to many countries and it compares favourably in performance and price with many overseas competitors making sophisticated machines. I would like to see an opportunity given for the House to return a few days earlier, for this and other reasons, so that we could have at least a day's debate, not only on the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders decision, not only on the Government's open-handed treatment of that company in handing out £20 million of taxpayers money, but also on the niggardly, cheeseparing and penny-pinching attitude of the Government towards the Beagle Aircraft Company.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift too much into the merits of the case he is advancing. He must relate his remarks to the Motion before the House and say why we should or should not adjourn until 19th January.

Mr. Farr: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like a debate soon after Christmas, early in the New Year, so that the Government's attitude towards the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders can be compared with their niggardly attitude towards the Beagle Aircraft Company in Leicestershire.
I want us to come back not a day or two early, but ten days early, because there is so much to do. So much lies before the House that it is choked with prospective legislation. There is so much disruption in industry and in the country generally that I would like us to return a week or ten days early to discuss some of the loose ends which the House will leave untied when we adjourn for the Christmas Recess.
Another reason for an early return is the situation in Rhodesia. We have had a most extraordinary example this week, mentioned a moment or two ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir F. Bennett). On Monday of this week, my hon. Friend and I asked the Foreign Secretary how many countries still retained official diplomatic representation in Rhodesia, and the Foreign Secretary replied that 13 were represented. On Wednesday, my hon. Friend put a


Written Question to the Foreign Secretary asking how many countries had withdrawn their representatives. He was told that four countries had done so, and each was named.
It gives some idea of the confusion which must be cleared up in an early debate, that the Foreign Secretary included Belgium on Monday as one of the countries which had diplomatic representation in Rhodesia and yet, magically, on Wednesday Belgium was included in his Written Reply as one of the countries which had withdrawn representatives. There is obviously confusion which must be cleared up.
During the week in which I hope we shall return early after Christmas, a debate on Rhodesia would be very welcome. There is a tremendous expansion of foreign activity in Rhodesia. The South Africans are moving in apace, they are buying up land and engaging in launching new business enterprises. Many other countries, not only the 13 listed as having diplomatic representatives in Rhodesia on Monday, are engaging in trade in Rhodesia which was formerly the prerogative of this country.
In addition to the trade which we are losing in Rhodesia, it is costing us a great deal to continue our abortive sanctions policy. We should have an early full day's debate, preferably in the first ten days of January, on Rhodesia and all the implications—the cost of sanctions, the cost of flying Shackletons daily across the Indian Ocean to try to spy the sanctions busters, the undercover work by other countries in promoting their exports and yet officially denying that they are doing anything of the sort. The debate would also allow the Foreign Secretary an opportunity to clear up the utter confusion which has resulted from his Oral reply on Monday and his Written reply on Wednesday.
There are many other reasons why I should like us to come back earlier. I have listed the Beagle Aircraft Company and Rhodesia, and I should like to add the Common Market and the prospects which now face the country in this connection. Very shortly, in the early months or perhaps towards the middle of 1970, the country will enter into negotiations, we understand, with the Common Market. But where is the necessary detailed and skilled information which hon. Members

on both sides of the House must have before they can apply themselves to this problem?
I should like at least one of the seven or eight days which I hope we shall have tacked on to the beginning of the Session after Christmas alloted to what I would call an interim debate on the Common Market, and I should like hon. Members on both sides of the House before that debate takes place to have in their hands the Green Paper of which the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon. There is some confusion about whether it is a White Paper or a Green Paper, but, whatever it is, we understand that we are at last to have authoritative figures on the implications for this country of the cost of entry.
My belief is that if we could have this early debate and be supplied beforehand with this document by the Treasury, so alarming and illuminating would the cost of entry be seen to be, that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be appalled by the consequences of our burying ourselves within the Community. But what we all beg for is an early opportunity to debate this vital issue and the early provision of the necessary statistics to which we may refer.
Yesterday my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) introduced a Bill relating to the desirability of a referendum before the country took this mammoth step of going into Europe—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington) rose—

Mr. Farr: I have not given way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lubbock: He was refused leave to introduce it.

Mr. Farr: My hon. and learned Friend sought to introduce a Bill relating to the desirability of a referendum about whether this country should go into the Common Market. If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) had waited a moment or two, he would have seen how I was to complete the sentence which would have made what I intended to say exactly correct. It is an extraordinary fact that that was the only debate, and it was not really a debate, on the Common Market which the House has had for the past 12 months.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckingham—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Buckinghamshire, South, please!

Mr. Farr: I apologise for being rude to my hon. and learned Friend. I know that he and one or two hon. Members opposite were present, but it is extraordinary that when we have an issue of this magnitude, when the country is poised at a historic crossroads, there should be no early opportunity for a discussion on the valuable information which we hope to get from the document which the Prime Minister said this afternoon we are to have around Christmas, or early in the New Year.
It cannot be said that the little debate which we had yesterday, which was introduced on the initiative of my hon. and learned Friend under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure, was in any way a substitute for the full and proper debate which the House must have. It was merely an address by my hon. Friend with a response, some say in opposition and some say in support, by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). The remainder of us were onlookers, spectators. None of us has the right and none of us can afford to be a spectator on this issue. What we must have at an early date is an authoritative debate backed up by the statistics which we required from the Treasury and which the Prime Minister said we would have around Christmas or early in the new year.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that another reason why we ought to have a debate in January on the whole question of the Common Market and the possibility of a referendum is that the decision and the vote yesterday may have been influenced by considerations of the manoeuvring for private Members' Ten Minute Rule Bills and that it would be a pity if that stood in isolation and went out to the world as an indication of the balance of opinion in the House on the subject of a referendum?

Mr. Farr: I am grateful. As is usual with any intervention which my hon. and learned Friend makes, he has hit the

nail bang on the head. He brings me to another point which I want to make in support of my argument that the House should return ten days earlier. To do so would provide an opportunity for two or three more Ten Minute Rule Bills. It would give hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity of filling the three or four vacant slots for Ten Minute Rule Bills which would become apparent. I agree that the figures yesterday were misleading, because hon. Members opposite, with some justification—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member would not be in order in going into too much detail about what happened yesterday.

Mr. Farr: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall endeavour to come back directly to the point.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Ifeel that I am slightly responsible for that. Would you not agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if one were arguing that we should come back early in January for a debate in order to correct a misimpression which was created yesterday, that would be within the debating range of the Motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the manner in which the hon. and learned Member suggests it, it would be.

Mr. Farr: That brings me back more or less to where I was. I was suggesting that if the House came back ten days or so earlier there would be an opportunity for several more Ten Minute Rule Bills and there would also be an opportunity for a full day's debate on the Common Market. Yesterday's debate was not good enough, and never would be good enough for an issue of this magnitude. It is surprising that the Government themselves do not seize this opportunity of giving backbenchers, and, for that matter, Front Benchers, the chance to express their views on the White Paper which we hope we are to get.
There are a couple of other reasons why we should come back early and which would make for a full Parliamentary week, in other words to return on the 10th January if not a day or two before that. If I can suggest five subjects for the five Parliamentary days, that would bring us back on 12th January.
The fourth subject which we ought to discuss at a very early date concerns motoring. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who do a lot of motoring will agree with me about the importance of the series of multiple crashes on the motorways in the last few days. I do not bring this reason forward in an idle moment. The M1 runs slap bang through my constituency. From junction 20 to about junction 25 on the M1 one has the pleasure of travelling through Harborough. There have been some terrible pile-ups in the fog and other bad weather conditions which we have had in the past week, not only on the M1 but on the M6.
It is becoming more and more apparent as we get further into the depths of winter and have to suffer more and more from this ghastly experiment with British Standard Time, which I hope will be abandoned at a very early date, that a motorway crash in poor visibility invariably leads to a series of crashes on the concertina pattern and that special legislation is needed to deal with this new problem.
Many suggestions have been made recently to make the motorways safer, particularly in fog. For example, it has been suggested that vehicles should carry rear lights of double intensity and that maxim um speeds on motorways should be more strictly limited in fog and poor visibility. I travel on the M1 twice a week. If fog is about I try to get off the motonvay because, however carefully one drives, one cannot cater for the madmen who charge along at 60 to 70 m.p.h., and this is done by both car and lorry drivers. When we debate the regulations applying to motorway speed limits, we must see how they can best be amended.
I do not mind in what order the subjects I have mentioned are discussed if we return a few days earlier. I suggest, however, that the position of the Beagle Aircraft Company should come first, with Rhodesia next. My next subject for debate would be agriculture, for it is a long time since we debate this subject generally. While we recently had the Second. Reading of a specific Measure affecting agriculture, which was attended by a few specialists and which is being mulled over at length in Committee upstairs, a general debate on agriculture is vital.
Many serious problems—some new, others familiar—have faced agriculturists in the last year. The codes of practice have received attention, but when we debated that issue we were confined to the codes; and when I tried to raise a somewhat different subject I was rightly called to order by Mr. Speaker. We need a full day's debate on agriculture to raise the thousand and one matters that need our attention. The conditions of farmers in some parts of the country in the last year have been appalling. In other parts the year began badly, but things have improved in recent months.
The Conservative Party's new policy for agriculture should be put before, and debated by, the House so that the country may know how effective our new policy will be in practice.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: That is a back somersault.

Mr. Farr: The nation should be aware not only of our target price system but of the guarantees to back that up. We also have important proposals to ensure that farmers have stability and security.
If we had the opportunity to debate agriculture generally, we could give many examples of the way in which cheap products are being dumped in this country, so endangering—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not, in anticipating the debate, debate the merits.

Mr. Farr: I hope that if a general agriculture debate takes place we shall discuss the dumping of cheap products and how the Conservative Party's new policy for agriculture would deal with the problem to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Not only in that debate but in a debate on the Common Market we could discuss the E.E.C.'s agriculture policy, the ruinous condition in which it stands and the tremendous surplus of butter that has been built up under its misleading and unhappy system of agricultural support. The C.A.P., as it is known—the Common Agricultural Policy—has caused vast surpluses of butter to be established. No wonder they want us to join. They want us in regardless of terms—they would like to compel us to join the club—so that they might shovel this vast surplus on to us—and for it the British housewife


would have to pay treble the cost of production.
In addition to the five subjects which could be debated on the five days which would be available to us if we returned earlier, an additional half-day might be provided to debate the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the way in which that would be affected should we join the Common Market. This is a valuable little Agreement which we have not debated for a considerable time. It has worked well both for Commonwealth sugar producers and for the British housewife, who has been assured of ready supplies of best sugar. If we enter the Common Market, our cheap Commonwealth sugar will be banned because it will have to climb a high tariff wall. Sugar will treble in price—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into the merits of the case.

Mr. Farr: If we returned five-and-a-half days earlier, a half-day could be devoted to the implications of our joining the E.E.C. from the point of view of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and what the repercussions would be for Commonwealth sugar producers and the British housewife.
I would not object if we returned nine or 10 days earlier so that we might tie up some of the loose ends that a Socialist Government traditionally leave at Christmas time.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I have already had two goes today at my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on a subject about which I might be in a minority of one, but a further go will not go amiss.
I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and say that we should return 10 days earlier. However, a number of vital subjects need urgent discussion. One is the Middle East. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) said earlier, another major war may break out in this area. The Middle Eastern crisis is real and must be debated.
Secondly, we must debate the Common Market, either for one or two days;

thirdly, we must discuss Rhodesia; fourthly, two days should be allotted for a debate on public expenditure; and, fifthly, we must discuss the trouble at Tilbury Docks.
I am in favour of a long holiday at Christmas time, but with these vital subjects requiring our attention, I see no reason why we should not adjourn on, say, the 24th, rather than the 19th, and return a few days earlier. That would still provide us with a reasonable Christmas Recess. While I do not wish to embarrass the Government by pressing this matter, I trust that my suggestion will be considered.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Although it is traditional for hon. Members to call for Parliamentary Recesses to be shortened, an extraordinarily strong case has been made out by hon. Members on both sides to show why this Christmas Recess should be shortened to provide time for vitally important matters to be debated.
I see the Minister smiling. I know as well as he knows that the Government will get their way and that we will recess for the time proposed. However, this will be an exceptionally long Christmas holiday—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—long in terms of these days of crisis under the present Government. We appreciate that the Government are anxious to keep my hon. Friends away from Westminster. The Prime Minister is particularly anxious to do that, and I do not blame him. It is here that we can try to get the truth from the Government.
While I am not anxious for the Recess to start earlier, I would not object to returning earlier so that perhaps four days would be available to discuss the topic to which hon. Member have referred, and perhaps a few more. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to Europe and the Common Market, and I will not cover that ground again.
A Department, probably the Treasury, is to publish figures in the form of a Green Paper on this whole subject. Decisions will be taken in Europe, particularly about the C.A.P., in the early weeks of January. While the Six are making up their minds on this issue, the British Parliament should be declaring its attitude toward C.A.P.
We hope that at some time, when we have the ability and if the conditions are right, this country will join the Common Market.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I invariably speak for myself and stand by what I say. It is important that Europe should know our feelings on the evolution of the C.A.P.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made a powerful case why we should return earlier to debate agriculture generally. A debate is needed quickly because the teams—Government and N.F.U.s—negotiating the Annual Price Review get together about the end of November and take decisions affecting the shape and pattern of the Review in the early weeks of January. Later, refinements are made, during the negotiations in February, but it is in the middle stage, in the first two or three weeks of January, that the Review takes its shape; and it is at that time that hon. Members need to put their views to the Government. When it is done later, it is frequently found to be too late.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is much unrest and anger throughout the agricultural community because of the lack of expansion and return on both landlord's capital and tenant's capital. Part of the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works is agricultural, and he must know full well that many of his smaller farmers are getting a poor return on capital. I am sure that he would be delighted to have a debate. I hear a mumur from the other side of "Tory policy". I would like to talk about Tory policy, but that is not an urgent matter now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because after the General Election that policy will be Government policy. Return on capital and expansion should be urgently discussed before the Minister of Agriculture gets to a position in which it is very difficult for him to change the shape of the Annual Price Review.
Like the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) I have been getting increasingly worried about the position in the Middle East. It has been building up in the last few weeks, with raids and counter-raids, and propaganda from both

sides. I do not mind the propaganda, but I do mind shooting wars, commando raids and air raids, and that is what is happening now. I know that we have just spent two days debating foreign affairs, but our preoccupation then was Vietnam and Nigeria. There was no time for either the Government nor the Opposition to put forward their views on the Middle East situation.
It is a matter of war and peace, and not only for the Middle East, because it could involve us as well. In the autumn, on my way to the East, I touched on the fringes of that area and found in the Gulf States anxiety about what could happen if the dispute between the Arab States and Israel were to blow up. I have no faith in the negotiations going on between the great powers. The Government should provide time for debate, so that we can seek to suggest a new method for taking some of the heat from the present position. If something is not done, we and our friends in the Middle East and elsewhere could suffer very grievously.
Time is needed to debate certain aspects of education. I want to see certain things put right in schools in my Derbyshire constituency before the children go back for the Easter term. In one part of my constituency there is a good deal of primary school and secondary school overcrowding. With classes of over 40 children. I know of 80 children being taught by two teachers in one room. As a result of bad dining facilities, 80 children have to eat their meals at their desks.
The Derbyshire County Council application for minor works programme has been cut from £500,000 to £325,000 and I understand that for 1971 it will be further cut to £275,000. Such a sum is not sufficient to carry out minor works that are so urgently needed. The House should return earlier than is proposed so that we may ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to authorise the Derbyshire County Council to spend more on its minor works programme before 19th January, otherwise these primary school children will go back for the 1970 school year to exactly the same bad conditions as they now suffer. That will be quite intolerable.
Another aspect of education is the teachers' strike. If that dispute is not


settled at the Burnham Committee meeting next Monday, the House should resume earlier to discuss the reason for there being no settlement, the cause of the present position, and what needs urgently to be done to put the matter right. Let us hope that next week's meeting will be successful that the Government's good offices will be used behind the scenes—as the Secretary of State has already hinted may be the case—so that a settlement can be reached before Christmas and we do not face the prospect of a strike of two or three weeks duration in January. If a settlement is not reached hon. Members should be here to discuss it, and not dispersed throughout the country.
Derbyshire is in the North Midlands, where we can have severe winter weather. All the weather forecasters seem to think that we are in for a fairly severe winter. From what one reads and hears, it seems that the Central Electricity Generating Board is quite incapable of meeting the demand which would result from severe weather. We have already had load-shedding of between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent., and I am told that in severe weather we are likely to have even more. The constituents of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) would then be particularly affected, so I am sure that he will want to come back here earlier in January so that discussions can take place and decisions be made to try to meet what might happen.
There is no time for that to be done this week or next because the Government have made such an infernal mess-up of their programme—[Interruption.] We are not to have before Christmas a debate on public expenditure as was promised and undertaken, because the Government have, as I say, made such an infernal mess of their programme. Yet the question of electricity supply is urgent. I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems that faults have cropped up in some of the plant being purchased by the Board. Whether they are faults of design or of manufacture, or where the blame lies, I do not know, but we should discuss the subject and allot the blame. Because plant is out of action, generating capacity has had to be reduced. If this goes on people and industry will face

grave difficulties should there be bad weather.
Can we be assured that there will be sufficient supplies of different types of domestic fuel should the weather turn very severe. Are the stocks sufficient? Are they having to be diverted because of the necessity to use old-fashioned and out-of-date plant, thereby causing a shortage of domestic fuels? If so, we must talk about this before it happens. Under this Government we so frequently have to do the talking after the event. We need to anticipate events and to help the Government to take decisions before events take place.
These are some of the reasons why we should come back earlier than 19th January. I support wholeheartedly my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Watford. We should come back a week earlier for we could fill in the time profitably for the nation.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I am beginning to suspect that, even if we came back on Boxing Day, there would not be enough time for the long-windedness of some hon. Members opposite. I want to touch on two points which I consider of great importance and a very good reason why, if we adjourn on the day which is suggested, we should come back somewhat earlier.
I regard the situation in the Middle East as very grave and one which would justify a special debate, even though it was mentioned in the general debate on foreign affairs. There is great justification for the House to come back perhaps a week, or two or three days, earlier to consider the very serious and rapidly deteriorating situation in the Arab-Israeli war. There is a certain grisly irony in the fact that while we celebrate Christmas the land of Palestine should be still torn by a savage racial war involving killing and murder on both sides. While this goes on our country and other countries which have special responsibility in the Security Council for this matter go on interminably, with apparent leisureliness, discussing without producing effective action to bring this state of affairs to an end.
The House could demonstrate its acute concern about the Middle East by


returning somewhat earlier than 19th January, or continuing for a day or two after 19th December, so that we might apply our minds to the urgency and grimness of this problem. There is good justification for shortening the 31 days proposed for the Recess. I take exception to the use of the word "holiday". It is not a holiday but a period when the formal business of the House does not continue and when hon. Members have a great many things to do which they do conscientiously. There is a case for this. House to reassembly before 19th January and to apply its mind corporately to a part of the world in which a savage racial war continues.
I urge on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to convey to his colleagues in the Government the very serious concern which hon. Members on both sides feel about the continually worsening situation and the continued failure by the Permanent Members of the Security Council to come forward with effective action to bring the two sides to their senses. I hope that this message of urgency will penetrate and that we will come back somewhat before 19th January to debate this problem. It lies heavy on my conscience, and I suspect on the consciences of many hon. Members, whether they are present in the House now or not.
Another matter on which there might be justification for reassembly somewhat earlier is the promise of a debate on public expenditure. I take it amiss that the Government should give a firm undertaking to the House that the extremely important White Paper on Public Expenditure should be debated before Christmas and then to find, for some reason I cannot accept as urgent in the context of the present situation, that the debate has to be put off so that we can discuss an entirely different matter. The Government could make good this omission by agreeing that the House should return on 12th January. I am not much in favour of the suggestion by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that we should come back on the Saturday, but we could come back on the 12th, 13th or 14th January to repair a very serious omission on the part of the Government in defaulting on a promise that this very important public document should be debated for two days.
The main reason for suggesting that we should come back earlier is not merely the intrinsic importance of the subject, but also because the Government represented that they were instituting an important new technique of debate on the whole business of public expenditure. I entirely accepted the Government's reasons and proposition on the matter. We have not traditionally spent enough time in constructive and informed discussion of the very important consequences which must flow from decisions made 18 months or two years before about capital and current expenditure. I welcomed the statements and promise by the Government that this traditional omission would be repaired this year and in good time by having the debate before the House rose for the Christmas Recess.
I am therefore all the more depressed that the dates of the Recess have been fixed in such a way and the business of the House for next week arranged in such a way that this promise cannot be kept. The Deputy Leader and his colleagues in the Government could repair the omission by summoning the House back a day or two before the proposed date of 19th January. That would give us more time to study and consider the rather complicated figures in the White Paper. It would make quite sure that the other urgent legislation which I gather is to come after 19th January does not have to be postponed because of the necessity to consider this extremely important document.
I took very seriously, as I believe other hon. Members did, the assurance given about this new technique concerning the study of our national financial arrangements. I therefore press on the Deputy Leader that I am not now concerned in this debate with a purely formal representation about the dates of the Recess, although they are important, but I am very much concerned that by some unhappy accident of Parliamentary busines what was promised has not been fulfilled and an important innovation in the procedures of the House may be in danger of escaping our grasp. We might he faced with a situation that another emergency occurs after 19th January which would again deprive us of debating something we urgently desire to debate.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will elaborate this point, which is crucial to the argument as to why it is important that the public accounts should be debated now before we move into the period of the Estimates.

Mr. Hooley: I am not sure that I need to elaborate my cogent, brief and forceful remarks. If I were to elaborate them and lengthen my speech to the extent of the speeches of some hon. Members opposide, we would have to return on Boxing Day; and I do not propose that we should do that.
However, I think that there is a case for recalling the House on 13th or 14th January so that the Government can make it crystal clear that they intend to implement the new procedural arrangement, to which I attach great importance, of enabling the House to debate, in an informed, coherent and sensible manner, the financial provisions which lie at the base of virtually all our social and economic policy, even though they may not have direct repercussions on some of our foreign policy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will convey to his Cabinet colleagues my wish, and that of others, that the Recess should be shortened by two, three, four or five days so that this can be done.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not join the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) in suggesting that we should sit until 24th December. Nor do I think that in general a Recess of one month is at all excessive. My recollection is that the normal length of the Christmas Recess has been five weeks. I have never objected to that and have always been a little suspicious of those who have objected to it.
However, on this occasion I think that there are matters which warrant the House resuming earlier than 19th January. I cannot remember a time when there have been so many subjects of importance and interest to a considerable range of Members but for which there has been no time for debate. Things are moving rather fast in the world in general and in Britain in particular. The Leader of the House says repeatedly

that there is no time to discuss this, that and the other subject.
I greatly fear that when we return on 19th January, if we return then, we shall be up against the same kind of stone-wall batting. I do not blame the Leader of the House: he has his priorities and his difficulties, about which the Deputy Leader of the House will no doubt tell us.
If we were to return two or three days earlier than 19th January, my wish would be that those days thereby gained should be allocated, not to the general business of the Government, which rides like a juggernaut over all other considerations, but to other matters which are at present scheduled to be neglected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made some attractive suggestions with which I agree. For example, he mentioned Rhodesia. Opinions vary on this subject, but it is a long time since we debated it; and there is no intention that we should debate it.
My hon. Friend suggested that the House should use a day in January to debate the Rhodesia question. The only particular in which I would differ from my hon. Friend is that I should like that day to be used for a Second Reading debate on the Rhodesia Independence Bill, which I presented earlier this week. This is a matter of urgency. The Government's Rhodesia policy is one of great folly. I would be out of order if I were to go into the merits of the policy or seek to discuss the folly of it, its absurdity in the context of the world today and the nature of modern governments, which are all illegal régimes, and the international considerations. There is no need for me to do that, however, because the folly and the consequences are self-evident.
Questions such as the damage to our economy, the detriment to British interests of the sanctions policy, and the injury to our sentimental ties and to the bond of loyalty between us and the Rhodesians, are relevant to the Question before the House, because time is of their essense: the damage, the injury and the detriment are all cumulative and they should be stopped at the earliest possible moment. This is why I should like a day in January to be devoted to debating the


Bill which I presented to repeal the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, abandon the policy of sanctions, and recognise the independence of Rhodesia.
I intervene principally to suggest three other questions which are urgent. The first is the repeal of the British Standard Time Act. Here I shall have widespread support on both sides—or I would have widespread support opposite if there were any hon. Members sufficiently interested in our proceedings to be present on the benches opposite to agree with me. I note that there are two nonofficial Members present on the opposite benches.
This is the subject which is most in order on the Question before the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is hopeful that his Private Member's Bill will be accorded a Second Reading on 22nd January, but it is the second Order on that day and, therefore, unlikely to be reached.
This subject greatly concerns the public during the dark months. January is the month above all in which the impact of British Standard Time is greatest, when we most feel its inconvenience, its absurdity, its tiresomeness and its dangers. If the subject is not debated during the winter, and if we are not able to debate it until the spring or the summer, the other follies of the Government begin to fill the foreground and, because the days are lighter and warmer, preoccupation with British Standad Time begins to fade. It is not that pepole agree with it in the summer. It is that the subject is no longer at the top of their attention. In January it is. So it is in January that we should have a debate on the subject.
Furthermore—I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will make a note of this and put it in his portfolio, although, technically, I am not sure that he has one—we want a free vote on the matter. That is the point. If we can come back a few days early in January, those days will not be ordinary Government days; there is no reason why they should not be given for consideration of Private Members' Motions or Bills on important matters which would not otherwise be discussed. If we could discuss the repeal of British Standard Time without a Gov-

ernment Whip on, I have no doubt what the result would be.
The second matter which I should like to be taken in January because it is urgent is a Measure—I hope to present a Bill to deal with this matter next week—to empower the courts to impose upon those—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to anticipate legislation which he intends to bring in? He has mentioned a Bill which he proposes to bring in next week. Surely, he cannot, on the Motion for the Adjournment, start to give details.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. It would be in order to make an incidental reference to the Bill but not to discuss its merits.

Mr. Bell: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you appreciate that I should not dream of saying anything out of order on an occasion like this, or any other. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), but I am sure that they will bear in mind that a declaration of legislative intention is not out of order in the House, and the Queen's Speech is almost nothing else. But I shall not give a list of my legislative intentions for the Session. That would take too long.
I was saying that one should empower the courts to charge the cost of the necessary extra police protection to those convicted before them of disorder with the intention of interfering with a lawful activity such as a football match. The cost of such extra protection should fall upon them, not upon the ratepayers or those going about their lawful occasions. This matter should be discussed in January, because disturbance of that kind is going on all the time and, apparently, there is a risk that it may grow in magnitude. The House should consider the problem and debate some of the statements which the Home Secretary has made about it in which he seemed to imply that he would not agree to the cost of policemen inside sports grounds being met out of public funds.
The House should consider also the right hon. Gentleman's statement, made in the House a few weeks ago, that the


use of stewards inside sports grounds is objectionable. If self-help is not to be allowed, and if the State will not make its officers available for the preservation of the Queen's peace, the Home Secretary should tell us how he envisages that the Queen's peace is to be preserved. The public would like to know at the first opportunity.
I should like the Home Secretary, on about 14th or 15th January, to explain why he thinks that people should be charged £10 a day for a policeman inside a football ground, a cricket ground or whatever it may be, to maintain public order. That happens to be almost exactly the same charge as is made for a private bed in a hospital. It seems rather odd if the Government, who say that an individual must not make private provision for treatment in sickness, say at the same time that they must make private provision for the maintenance of the Queen's peace. I should like to hear something about this in January.
The third matter which I should like dealt with in January is urgent and important, too. We should use, perhaps, the last Parliamentary day before 19th January to discuss proposals for dealing with the monstrous abuse of trade union organisation which we have been seeing in the last few weeks, this monstrous abuse of combination to coerce and hold the community up to blackmail, which seems to be growing every week, imperilling the national economy, and beginning to cause a disintegration of national sense of cohesion and unity.
The Government have no intention of allowing us to debate that subject in the immediate future. They propose to introduce an Industrial Relations Bill after Christmas, but that Bill is apparently, to be a kind of trade union benefit bill, whereas we want something which will protect the community from the kind of gangster activity which we are seeing every day. Everyone is now asking for a "dustman's settlement", and we know what that means. It means a settlement based on the price which the community is willing to pay to be relieved of the results of blackmail. This is an urgent matter, and it is not proposed, as far as I know, by Her Majesty's Government that we should discuss it at any time before or after Christmas. The

only way we can discuss it is by coming back early and having a debate on it in private Members' time, specially so arranged, and a free vote on it. Then we shall see, surprisingly enough, that there is a general consensus on both sides of the House, as there is in the country, that this is an enduring scandal about which Parliament must do something, and do it quickly.
In one sense I do not wish to come back early in January at all. But it is our duty to do so. If we could have one Parliamentary week in which we granted independence to Rhodesia, arranged for a referendum before going into the Common Market, abolished British Standard Time, dealt with the problem of demonstrations, and reformed trade union law, it would be a week well spent.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to deal with the last few remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). Personally, I should not wish to come back early to deal with the need to stop the restrictive practices of the legal profession in its blackmailing efforts through its trade union, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, in making all the legal charges which lawyers insist that their clients must pay.
I agree that it is an important issue. I agree that the legal profession is a closed shop, and that it ought to have its toenails clipped. But I think that that can probably be done without our coming back a week earlier. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the trade unions in the legal profession are, in effect, a blackmailing organisation, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member should be a member of that profession.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Mr. Lewis: I cannot give way, because my Chief Whip has told me that he wants to get on with the Gas Bill, and I would not want to upset the Chief Whip.
I am not sure whether to oppose the Motion for the Adjournment or support it. At this stage, I am in a quandary. I want time to discuss a subject which, apparently, I cannot discuss next week, and I may have to oppose the length of the Recess so that we could, perhaps,


come back earlier and debate it. I refer to Ronan Point. I think that the Deputy Leader of the House knows quite a lot about it.
About 18 months ago, there was a great disaster, and even now nothing tangible has been done about it. I have tried, by Questions and other means, to get the Government to act, and they have done nothing.
This is important to my constituents and to those of the Deputy Leader of the House. If we do not come back early, I shall not be able to debate the Government's miserly and niggardly proposals which, if implemented during the Recess, would land my constituents with 60 per cent. of the cost of a disaster which was no fault of theirs—either on the rates or on their rents or by a combination of both. This is grossly unfair.
My constituency is one of the finest in the country. I know that every hon. Member must think this of his own constituency. It is highly industrialised. It has always suffered. It is part of the London docks, and it was the worst-bombed borough during the whole war. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is in a similar position, because he represents Tower Hamlets, which is a similar constituency. Our people were bombed out and lost their homes not once, but dozens of times. They had just got over the suffering and started to rebuild, and this disaster happened. One would have thought that the Goy ernment would meet the cost—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate now the question which he would debate if we came back earlier.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I am not going into details. I was saying that, if we came back earlier, I might be able to have a debate on this subject and save my constituents the additional cost of 60 per cent.
Unless we have a debate in the next two or three weeks, this might not be possible. I would not want to have such a debate on Christmas Eve or New Year's Day, since very few hon. Members would be here. But this is a very serious matter. I am in a quandary about whether to support hon. Members opposite who think that we should come back earlier to

enable us to debate various subjects, because then I might be able to raise this matter in detail.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me a definite assurance that the Government will take some positive action here before the Recess, because this has been outstanding for 18 months. I have been tipped off privately that it could be two years before action is taken. If that is true, I warn the Government that I shall be very annoyed and will take the most serious action open to me. Every opportunity I get, I shall try to hold up Government business, and, if the Whips try to interfere, I shall resign the Whip, because I do not want to be a supporter of this Government if they do not do the right thing by these people. This is not a threat, but a request to the Government to do the right thing.
There are other subjects which I could also raise if we came back early. For instance, almost 12 months ago, the Attorney-General promised me an investigation and the publication of a report into cube-cutting. Again, my right hon. Friend is affected—

Sir Frederick Bennett: Tell us more.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member would like me to go into details of cube-cutting, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow that. It is a racket worked by the shipping and forwarding agents, whereby they have their cake and eat it. An investigation has been going on for about 12 months.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South has left. He was saying how terrible the trade union movement is, and I wanted to point out how terrible it is that the legal profession takes so long to deal with simple matters. This investigation into cube-cutting has been going on for 12 months and we still have not had a report. What has happened about the report and the Attorney-General's promise of a statement? Will we get it before the House rises? This might be another reason for me to oppose the Adjournment.
Another matter which arose only today was the strange statement of the Leader of the House, which he said we would have only an hour and a


half to debate. That is not very long, considering that almost every hon. Member will want to take part in such a debate—on the Services Committee's Report on Members' salaries and secretarial assistance.
To help me decide how to vote on the Motion, perhaps my right hon. Friend could tell me how many stenographers in his office earn £500 a year or less? He might also find out how many officials of the House are in this situation, since I can find none. He might also find out how many civil servants get 6d. a mile or less for their travelling. This would be useful, since I have found no one, in local or national government, or working for any of the boards, who is in this situation.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, has now returned, since I wanted to refer to the legal profession and a matter on which I am sure that I will have his support. Only last week, the Attorney-General was asked some serious questions about pornographic literature being sent through the post, quite unsolicited, to juveniles and old people. He said that he and the Director of Public Prosecutions had considered this and that nothing could be done.
Since then, one of my constituents, a nurse, has had some really filthy pornographic literature sent to her. I have referred this to the Attorney-General, but have told my constituent that, in view of his reply on similar matters, I was not sanguine that anything would be done.
If we came back a week earlier the Attorney-General could, through what we euphemistically refer to as "the usual channels", get a Bill agreed to, which could go through almost on the nod, giving him the legislative powers to deal with these purveyors of filth. Thus the week could be used not just by back benchers, but by the Government.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Member is on a good point. Is he aware that the other day a constituent of mine, a young girl aged 12, received one of these pieces of trash through the post, addressed to her personally? Is he further aware that when I called the attention of the Attorney-General to the matter, he said that I could take some very strong and

definite action against this firm, that I could really upset it, by instructing my constituent to send the letters back to the firm? If that is how the right hon. and learned Gentleman views the problem—in such a light-hearted way—I do not think that we have much hope

Mr. Lewis: I accept the hon. Member's words, although this is an ex parte reference. I have not asked the Attorney-General whether he said that, and I do not know the facts. But I do know that in the House the Attorney-General said that he would not take any action and went on to say that he could not, because he did not have the legislative powers. He can get legislative power whenever he wants it. If the Government supported us and came back a week earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend and his legal luminaries could introduce a Bill on this matter that could go through within 24 hours.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is now on a point concerning a number of us. I had a leaflet sent to me, received by a constituent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is stretching the Motion a bit too far. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude in dealing with the subject, but we must move on now.

Mr. Lewis: I have made my point and will leave it there.
Hon. Members have rightly referred to the tragic situation affecting what I call two of the best types of employees, namely, the teachers and the nurses. I do not know how long ago it was since we had a debate on teachers' or nurses' salaries. If we came back early we could debate these subjects and perhaps prevent further strikes. I am not like hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not condemn these strikes although I regret them. I am sorry that they have to take place and for the pupils and the parents who have to suffer.
Only this week in the House, the Minister of Agriculture had to admit that, unfortunately, price rises were taking place. I drew his attention to the fact that 250 food prices will rise in the new year. This is another reason for returning early, because these increases will not help the prices and incomes policy.
Then there was the Prime Minister's promise of a White Paper on all the aspects of entering the Common Market. This was promised by the end of the year and he now tells us that it will be in January. If we came back early we might be able to get the White Paper earlier. I am surprised that it has taken so long. The Daily Telegraph has published its report, as has the C.B.I.
I went more democracy for Members of Parliament. Before every Recess we have this kind of Adjournment debate and not one hon. Member on either side is consulted about what they want. The "usual channels" get together and decide how long we shall be in recess and then the Government table a Motion, and we are told that we can reject or accept it. I am not sure that this is the best way of doing it. The Government should practise in the House what they preach in the country, namely, good industrial relations. There should be consultations. I would like to see them negotiating with Members and asking them what are their views, whether they feel that a Select Committee should deal with this or that, whether we should have a Recess until 19th January. If they did that they could find a consensus and reach a decision which was agreed by most hon. Members.
The former Leader of the House told me that he could not do this because if Members were consulted in advance it would leek into the Press. Every day of the week we have everything leaking into the Press. I knew next week's business before it was announced here, I knew about the length of the Recess long before this Motion was tabled. I do not see why we should debate a subject like this. It is known weeks beforehand to the Press, to everyone except hon. Members. We are never asked or consulted.
I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that he might consider meeting various Members and asking them what they feel about this. It might save a lot of time and help the Government to get their business more speedily.

6.18 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I was in considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said earlier, that if one cannot debate one's chosen subjects it becomes all the more important that one

should have at least accurate and full information in response to Questions. The hon. Member and I know some of the difficulties that have arisen over a period of time. Earlier today, I referred to my strong feelings about this. Before the House rises the Foreign Secretary or another Minister should come to the House to explain and apologise for inaccurate Answers given to Questions put by me this week.
I have been in the House for 18 years, with only a brief break of some months half-way through, and I cannot remember an occasion when a request of this sort would have had to be made. Normally, if an hon. Member has the courtesy to point out to a Minister that an inaccurate statement has been made, the Minister takes the earliest opportunity to come to the House to deny the accusation, if that be the case—it cannot be denied in this case—or else to give an explanation and an apology.
I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take this seriously, because it reflects on more than just a party point and I am sure he will agree that normally if a Minister, from either party in power, gives inaccurate information in Parliamentary Answers he takes the earliest opportunity to come to the House to correct it. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he were sitting on this side in Opposition he would be among the first to press for exactly this to happen.
I know that I may not go into the merits of this matter, so I shall curtail my remarks to the bare facts of what took place, but it is only fair to the Minister that I should give the facts for, otherwise, he cannot ask his right hon. Friend to come to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not go into the details of the matter that he wishes to debate. We are debating the length of the Recess which we shall take. The hon. Member may argue that we should not take the Recess till he is satisfied on the matter with which he is concerned, but he may not go into the details of that matter.

Sir F. Bennett: I appreciate the difficulty in which I am, and in which I may put you, Mr. Speaker, if I stray outside the rules of order, but I do ask you to indulge me as far as is fitting, for it is


difficult for a Minister to know how to give answers if one does not state some facts, and without going into detail. I shall strive to avoid that—

Mr. Speaker: It is a difficulty which every hon. Member has to avoid when he debates whether we should adjourn for a Recess or not, or for how long.

Sir F. Bennett: Very briefly, without going into details, a number of hon. Members here, certainly two of my hon. Friends, have already said how very worried we are about the progress of events in Rhodesia, and, with particular reference to the imposition of sanctions, to the question whether they are being effective or not effective, and whether other countries which are involved are playing the game or doing no more than paying lip service to the United Nations resolution.
In this context it is very important that, before we rise, the Minister should come to the House and make a statement, as I hope he will, and give us more light than I have been able to extract so far by way of Question and Answer. These are two all-important issues. The first is: are sanctions really working? Secondly whether they are working or not, is Britain's trade suffering while that of other countries is gaining at our expense by their increasing their trade? These are very important issues and I want the Minister to make a statement about them before we rise for the Recess.
It is obviously very important that the Minister should give us accurate information on what representation these other countries still maintain in Rhodesia when we have withdrawn our own representative there. It is obviously very pertinent to the main issue that I want debated before the House rises, or about which I would like a statement made before the House rises, that on Monday of this week, when I pressed for an Answer on this matter, I was told that there were 13 countries—no fewer than that—which have diplomatic representation there. I shall not name them, but they were listed by name. The Foreign Secretary, in defending his point, went on to say that there was a large number of other countries which had had representatives there before U.D.I. but had since withdrawn them.
I then proceeded to ask which they were. It is a strange fact—and this is where I have to refer to a detail—that one and the same name appears on the list of those which have diplomatic representation there but, two days later, was also given as one country which had withdrawn.
I asked the Foreign Office to explain. I was given an astonishing answer, that in the second case the name was wrongly given, because the diplomatic representation concerned had moved from Salisbury to Bulawayo. It seems hardly relevant to the question of diplomatic representation in Rhodesia whether the representation is in one town or another. I was also told that a large number of other countries had withdrawn their diplomatic representation, but in his own Answer the Foreign Secretary, after admitting earlier that there were 13 still there and there were only three which had withdrawn. Is that a very large number—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may ask for more light, but may not himself in this debate give us light.

Sir F. Bennett: May I, then, just ask for more light—how that number is a large number? I have been given another answer, which was put into my hands less than half an hour ago, and it says that there were five which had taken their diplomatic representation away. So I have had three contradictory answers in three days.
I would like my question to be answered before we rise for the Recess, or else, perhaps, we could come back earlier, but it seems to me absolutely essential as a matter of principle that we should debate the whole question of the imposition and the effectiveness of sanctions, and whether this country is being discriminated against, or not, because of their ineffectiveness. What I am asking the Minister or his right hon. Friend to do is to throw more light on this matter, because I have recently had a succession of the most contradictory answers that I can remember in 18 years as a Member of the House.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Ought we not to come back a little earlier in January to have a debate on what is apparently the very interesting subject of what constitutes a large number?

Sir F. Bennett: I should like to do that, but I think that that would be asking more than Mr. Speaker would be prepared to tolerate. We might also have a debate on the conduct of a Minister who makes a false statement and does not correct it, which would be more relevant to the point, but I must not trespass upon the indulgence which Mr. Speaker has given me.
I hope that the Minister realises that this is about the only opportunity one can get to obtain rectification of a most serious Ministerial error. I hope that we shall get a statement before the end of next week.

6.26 p m.

The Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Shore): I feel that I should reply to some of the points which have been made so far in this brief debate. There have been seven speeches and I have heard them all. Inevitably, there tends, in a debate of this kind, to be a certain amount of repetition as hon. Members put forward those points of great concern to them and give reasons for thinking that the House should continue to sit or to come back at an earlier date, but I think the general temper of the debate has been an agreeable one; indeed, some rather good speeches, I thought, were made.
Frankly, however, I thought that the tone was generally marred somewhat, to put it mildly, by two remarks. One was a remark made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) not in his main speech but in his intervention later, when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and imputed to the Attorney-General words, which he quoted, which he said the Attorney-General had spoken, in what context I do not know. The general effect of his intervention was to suggest that the Attorney-General's attitude to questions of pornographic literature was flippant. I think that that impression which the hon. Gentleman gave is an impression which he did not mean to give, and if that is so I hope that he will make the point clear now.

Mr. Farr: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. No. What I actually said, and I repeat it, was that I

received a letter—I said, from the Attorney-General. It was either from the Attorney-General, or from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I am speaking from memory. This letter quite clearly said that the only course my constituents could take was to send the letters back to the firm from which they originated. Quite frankly, I do not consider that good enough. I repeat what I said earlier.

Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Member has made himself rather clearer and that with the general tone he has used now he has helped to clear the matter up.
The second remark which I thought was a little unfortunate was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), when he used extravagant language to describe what I think he described—what was the word he used about my right hon. Friend?—

Sir F. Bennett: Inaccurate, false, misleading.

Mr. Shore: Inaccurate, false, misleading. Yes, well, I think from the material I have seen—and I have been studying this rather hard during the last half hour or so—the strongest phrase that could possibly be used on this is "slight confusion". If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I hope to explain why I believe he is confused—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the Minister cannot debate now what he could debate if the Adjournment Motion were defeated and we had no Christmas holiday.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman say that we should come back a day early—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made his plea in a speech, and I am sure that the House has listened to it with gravity.

Mr. Shore: You are absolutely right to draw my attention to this, Mr. Speaker. The point I was seeking to make in my opening remarks was that I did not think there was any need for the House to remain in session or to curtail the Recess to clear up what I believe to be a slight confusion in the words used in answer to a Question put down by the hon. Member for Torquay.
Although, with regret, I have to admit that it would be out of order for me to put this matter right now, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will receive a reasonably satisfactory explanation within a short time.

Sir F. Bennett: How?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman himself will have to see whether or not that explanation is satisfactory.

Sir F. Bennett: . The Minister said that I would get an explanation. Will it be by a statement made publicly?

Mr. Shore: Unless I am misinformed, I think that the hon. Gentleman has put down a Written Question.

Sir F. Bennett: No.

Mr. Shore: Then I shall have to consider how best the hon. Gentleman's problem can be met at the earliest moment.
I turn to the main issues which have been raised. Virtually all hon. Members who spoke expressed anxiety about the situation in the Middle East, and I well understand why. It is an unhappy situation, but, as hon. Members know, the four-Power talks are at present active in New York. I can add nothing further except that Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned are together discussing the situation, and I am sure that the anxiety of hon. Members and the urgency with which they regard this matter are fully understood by the Government. On the other issues of foreign policy which were raised, I have already made a brief comment on Rhodesia and I do not think that I can add to that.
Several hon. Members expresed interest in the forthcoming information about the Common Market. We must see that document and have time to study it before we can have a useful debate. There are difficulties here which I think the House will appreciate. The situation in the Common Market is not static, but very active, and the shape of policy is constantly changing as important matters are renegotiated among the Six, especially the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There has been confusion about when the document will

be published. Will the Minister give an approximate date? May we hope that it will be during the first week in January?

Mr. Shore: I cannot go beyond what has already been said, which is that it will be as early as possible in the New Year.
On the domestic issues that have been raised, the hon. Member for Harborough thought that five and a half days could be usefully filled by debating the matters which he suggested. I believe that there is a good prospect of some of these subjects being discussed when we reassemble in January. That is not a specific promise, but hon. Members may have a chance to debate the Common Market and Rhodesia and there will be opportunities to debate the strategy of Government aid to industry. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not wish to take the point which he was making about the Beagle Aircraft Company in isolation, but in the broad context of Government assistance to industry to be judged against the background of aid for other industries, such as shipbuilding. I am sure that opportunities for such a debate will arise in the ordinary course of events.
I noted with great interest what the hon. Gentleman said about Conservative agricultural policy. The House will be most interested to know of this and to have an opportunity to debate it, but I do not think that we need to come back early to do so. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to see whether a Supply day, or part of a Supply day, could usefully be occupied in telling the House and the nation precisely what the Conservative policy is.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) expressed anxiety about electricity power supplies. It is natural that this subject should be raised at a time like this, particularly in view of the recent interference with supplies. We entered the winter in a strong position in terms of capacity—better than for some years. It has been our misfortune that problems have been discovered with the new, large sets which are being introduced which are having teething problems and need to be worked in. This is a perfectly legitimate problem, and I am


advised that, given a reasonable winter—although our winter is sometimes unreasonable—we need not anticipate the breakdowns which the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
The problem that was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North was near to my heart. My hon. Friend speaks on many subjects which, geographically, are very close to my constituency, and I am conscious of and involved in several of the matters which he raised. On Ronan Point, discussions with local authorities are still proceeding which it is hoped to bring to a conclusion in the near future.
There are many different layers of the problem. One matter with which my hon. Friend is concerned involves the kinds of regulations which should be laid down, the specifications for new buildings and the repair of existing ones. Secondly, there are the problems which he faces in his constituency of the decanting of certain people while repair work is being undertaken. Thirdly, there is the matter of compensation for the tenants who were disturbed, and, lastly, is the question of the financial arrangements to be made by the Government and the councils involved.
These are complex matters. I understand my hon. Friend's impatience. I will do my best to hurry on any conclusion of these discussions. I am as interested in this matter as he is.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Can it be taken that this hurrying up will mean that we shall have some action quite soon, because the matter has now been outstanding for 18 months, getting on for two years?

Mr. Shore: We will do so as far as we possibly can. As I have said, I understand my hon. Friend's impatience, but in the nature of the problem it is not easy to accelerate matters.
I conclude by dealing with two further matters. It was alleged by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Christmas Recess was excessively long. The House will know that this is not the case. We are to adjourn for 30 days. My information

is that on only one occasion during the 13 years of Tory rule did they have a Christmas Recess lasting for less than 30 days. Interestingly enough; it was the last year of their rule when, no doubt, they felt that there was a great deal of business left undone with which they had need to catch up. I recall one occasion when they had no fewer than 52 days of Christmas Recess. Let us be clear that there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary in the present length of Recess. This is, as it were, the Labour average and tends to be considerably below the period previously established.
Finally, I give the usual assurance that if events move in a serious way and representations are made to the Government for a recall of Parliament then, obviously, we will consider the matter most carefully. Such a power exists and we shall approach the authorities in the proper way.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 19th December, do adjourn till Monday 19th January.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Transport (London) Amendment Act, 1969.
2. Expiring Laws Act, 1969.
3. Rent (Control of Increases) Act, 1969.
4. Police Act, 1969.
5. Customs (Import Deposits) Act, 1969.
6. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1969.
7. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1969.

GAS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.45 p.m.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill arises directly from the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea. The discovery has a profound effect on the industry, and its further development will have an even greater effect.
The gas industry will be undergoing its second major revolution within a decade. It moved from coal carbonisation to oil reforming. It is now rapidly moving to displacing conventional forms of gas more or less exclusively by natural gas mainly from the North Sea.
The effect of this development is that instead of being an industry of fragmented manufacture and distribution the gas industry will become an industry of distribution only. Furthermore, during the next few years we expect to see the size of the industry doubled or trebled. As this great conversion takes place and natural gas takes over entirely from town gas, re-equipping and conversion of appliances and apparatus will involve about 13 million customers. It is vital that, if this great discovery and its many advantages are to be fully exploited, we should organise a speedy and smooth changeover from the old forms of gas-making to the new distribution system and the appliances which will go with it.
It is fairly obvious that the structure of the gas industry which was related to its origins in terms of local gas-making, and which, in turn, was later centralised to some extent in policy making, will change as natural gas from the central source of supply takes over. Therefore, it is inevitable that there must be a change in the structure of the industry giving to the centre which controls these vast supplies of gas appropriate planning powers to undertake the vast operation that lies ahead.
This central control, related to the central source of supply which will almost exclusively exist as natural gas takes over, must be able to plan nationally in matters like capital expenditure, pipeline grids, storage facilities, and the fixing of tariffs. There will no longer be local

firms with local apparatus churning out gas, but one great central source from which the tariff must be fixed centrally. It follows that the overall financial responsibility for the industry must be taken by those in control of the sources of supply, the Gas Council.
My predecessor, though he bore a more muscular and less generous title than I myself, gave a general indication of the changes which will be required. These were given a general welcome by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and by the N.B.P.I. I do not pray them in aid as specifically approving the proposals in the Bill, but the general need for a reconstruction of the industry along the lines I now propose in the Bill was recognised and welcomed by the Select Committee.
In making this change, which involves some strengthening of the power at the centre of the industry, I have been anxious to provide that we do not either turn the local area boards into mere automata, obeying rigorously some all knowing, all-seeing central authority. I say this for two reasons. First, we want to allow the benefits of the past to accrue in the industrial adventures of the future. The past history of the gas industry was such that we had great pools of talent in the area boards which in many cases had the responsible job, not merely of ensuring the distribution of gas, but of making all sorts of arrangements for its manufacture.
I wish to see that pool of talent, decision-making and experience drawn into the new body, the Gas Council, which will take control centrally as is inevitable because of the developments in natural gas which lie ahead. I not only seek to utilise the talent in this way, but to preserve it for use in the industry and to draw it into the central authority by retaining on the Gas Council the area board chairmen who will form two-thirds of the Gas Council itself. Thus, although it is an exercise in centralisation, it is a rather novel exercise, because we draw into the central authority the people who are exercising authority in the area, getting the benefit of their experience, and ensuring at the same time that we do not have a remote central body unaware of the problems and difficulties of the areas by providing that the Gas Council itself, which has


the central authority, is constituted as to two-thirds of its membership by the area board chairmen.
Powers must be available generally to the central authority over the area boards in the nature of the new structure that will arise as natural gas takes over more and more. The central authority will be given power to give directions to the area boards to enable it to discharge the responsibility for the industry, financial and industrial, which is placed firmly on it in the Bill.
Tariffs will be fixed by the central authority, or, if they are fixed by the local authority, they will be subject to amendment by the central authority, so it means, in effect, that tariffs will be tinder the final decision of the Gas Council itself, but that will be subject to two things—

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does that mean that tariffs will be the same throughout the country? Is it the intention to fix identical levels of prices throughout the country for identical consumers?

Mr. Lever: No, not necessarily. What will be identical will be the price at which the Gas Council will supply the natural gas to the area boards. Although I am talking of a few years hence, when natural gas will have displaced entirely town gas, there is the interim period in which a certain amount of gas-making will be going on locally, on a diminishing scale, as the natural gas takes over.
The tariff-fixing power of the Gas Council will be subject to two general provisions. First, I need hardly say that any contract entered into already by area 'boards will be honoured. There will be no power in the Gas Council to override existing contracts. Secondly, there is no reason why local costs and local successes in economy and efficiency should not be reflected in local prices to the extent that this will be possible under the new regime. Clearly, as long as the area boards are making their own gas, this might be a relevant and significant factor, but, as this local gas-making is wound up, it follows that there will not be the wide variations in price which might have occurred under the old system, because all the area boards will be gel ting their bulk supplies of natural

gas at the same price from the Gas Council. But that is not to say that there will not be complete possibilities for area boards to ensure that any benefits of local efficiency are passed on to the consumer in some variation in price.
The general capital development programme of the industry will be settled by the central Gas Council. That follows logically from what I have said. In the past, it was understandable that there were these area boards each formulating an appropriate capital programme, because they had major tasks, not only of distribution, but of gas-making, to undertake. But, as the natural gas comes through a system of pipes to the area boards, the capital programme which makes this possible ought to be planned and controlled by the Gas Council, and the financial responsibility for that should be upon it, subject always to the approval of the Minister.
Overall financial responsibility will be passed to the Gas Council. The obligation to pay its way, instead of being thrown on the area boards, will be thrown on to the council, so that the industry as a whole, operating as it will be from a central point of supply, will have to pay its way, and the statutory responsibility to ensure that that is done will lie upon the Gas Council.
I hope that no one will make heavy weather of this. I am anxious not to encourage any excessive centralisation which is not industrially necessary. The only centralisation that is taking place is the centralisation dictated by the industrial and economic facts of the new development, and that is mitigated in the way that I have shown, by ensuring that the area board chairmen constitute a majority on the central authority and are able to bring their influence to bear in that way.
Nobody ought to be excited by the fact that because this is a nationalised industry it is inevitable that any powers that it has have to be expressed in statutory form, and so there is talk of "power to give directions" to the area boards by the Gas Council. It is inevitable that those words should be used, but I do not want anyone to imagine that that is the way the industry will operate, with showers of directions corning from some rigid central authority to


the area boards. Business will go on in the ordinary way, with the ordinary, reasonable, flexible informality that one would expect in a prosperous and successful industry of this kind, but it is inevitable that I have to use language like "power to give directions" if I am to comply with the need to have an ultimate reserve of power which defines where responsibility lies.
The point of the Bill is not to anticipate clashes between the Gas Council and area boards, but to define in statutory form, as I must with a nationalised industry, where responsibility lies. But I emphasise again that the good spirit and good relations of the industry will, I have no doubt, continue as before.
I propose, now, to say a word about the oil powers in the Bill. I have no doubt that this will be the subject of excited, if not to me exciting, debate today and in Committee. Here again, I hope that the House will try to keep a sense of proportion about this. It has been recognised from the outset of the discovery of North Sea gas that the Gas Council, which will be the great consumer of this gas, ought to be given the opportunity to participate in the exploration processes on what is known as the Continental Shelf. I think that this was accepted by the previous Conservative Government, and I think that it will be generally accepted that the Gas Council, being in the position of the great consumer of this gas, should, if possible, participate in the exploration process, share the risks, and share the gains.
There are other ancillary advantages which will accrue, because, if it is in partnership with private oil companies in making these discoveries, it illumines the situation for later negotiations on prices in many ways, and makes it helpful, because it will be the partnership of the Gas Council and the oil company, or companies, in the exploration which will finally be doing the deal with the Gas Council to sell it the natural gas.
It is one of nature's quirks, rather than a doctrinaire passion of the Labour Party, which has produced a situation in which gas and oil can be discovered; when one is looking for the one, one is liable to discover the other. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that this has nothing to do with

the constitution of the Labour Party. This is more to do with divine dispensation, or the distribution of geological relationships a great many years ago. If one concedes that the Gas Council ought to be given the right to search for gas in partnership with experienced prospectors, one has to accept, too, that if oil is discovered it should not turn shuddering away from the rich gushes of oil that it finds when looking for gas, but that it should continue to participate with its partners in the exploitation of that oil.
Although the general purpose of these powers is to set the Gas Council into the natural gas discovery picture, for the many reasons which I have given, it may discover oil. If it gets oil, I want the council to be in the same posiiton as any ordinary citizen would be, with the same powers in utilising and exploiting the discovery as any ordinary citizen would have.
Therefore, there are powers in the Bill to get, refine and market oil. I am not suggesting that that will be one of the great purposes of this industry. The primary purpose of this industry is to supply gas to the domestic, commercial and industrial users of this country. But, for the reasons which I have given, we may find ourselves possessors of oil, and, if we are, it should be the sensible view of the House—all political theology apart—that the Gas Council should not be hampered in the exploitation of any such asset, any more than any private citizen would be hampered. No limited company, no private individual who was engaged in exploitation for gas would reject the gush of oil if it came his way. Having got it, no individual or private company would want to be hampered or restricted artificially in the exploitation of the benefits which resulted therefrom.
But I want to assure the House that the general purposes of the Bill are as I have outlined them. There are no secret, mysterious desires to rival the oil companies or to people the country with new petrol stations served by nationalised, mini-skirted girls handing out State stamps, treble, quadruple or quintuple, or anything of that kind. I ask the House to assent to the reasonableness of giving to the Gas Council, which is, after all, representing the public, the country, the same facilities for exploiting any advantages


which accrue as would be available to the private citizen.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. David Lane: Mr. David Lane (Cambridge) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must decide to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Lever: I give way to the hon. Member on the Front Bench, but I will gladly give way to the other hon. Member later.

Mr. Ridley: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether what he said would apply to a private company which discovered gas in the North Sea, and whether he would not, therefore, think that it should be given facilities to market and distribute that gas within the United Kingdom. This, after all, is the corollary of his argument.

Mr. Lever: The difference between gas and petrol is this, that the nation has decided—not without protracted debate and detailed discussion, as I recall it—that the gas industry should be a State monopoly and should be owned by the State. If the State had decided, or if Parliament had decided—which they have not—that oil should be a national monopoly, then, of course, I should have had to stipulate that any discoveries of oil piped to this country should be sold exclusively by the State monopoly. But there is no such State monopoly and there is no intention to bring one into being.
We are dealing with two totally different subjects. The gas industry has, by decree of Parliament, been given the monopoly, on behalf of the public, in the supply of gas. The hon. Member is a little out of date if he thinks that we should abandon that notion. His own Government did not take the opportunity of fragmenting this industry, whatever they did elsewhere. I thought that we could say that, in 1969, we were all agreed that the gas industry should be publicly owned and operated.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I have been following my right hon. Friend's argument closely. Would he extend an equal right to the electricity supply industry, which could make very good use of natural gas and of oil?

Mr. Lever: If I thought that it was reasonable, logical and necessary to extend the right of exploration, refining and marketing of oil to the electricity industry, I should do so, but I know of no disability which has been suffered by that industry in not having these powers—

Mr. Palmer: It burns it in its power stations.

Mr. Lever: It does not follow that, because a nationalised industry burns oil, I must turn it into the oil exploration business. It does not follow that, because it uses sugar in the tea served to its employees, I should put it into sugar refining. One must strike a balance which relates to industrial logic—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a conversation.

Mr. Lever: I am driven by industrial logic and commercial common sense and not by emotional reflexes. Hon. Members on both sides must decide what propulsion they will use for their arguments.

Mr. Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman is always so logical, and is now pursuing his industrial logic, so could he tell us why it is logical to give powers to explore in the North Sea and the Irish Sea to the Coal Board, the nationalised coal industry, and not, as the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, to the electricity industry?

Mr. Lever: If the hon. Gentleman will ask me that question when it would be in order for me to give him a proper and comprehensive answer, I should be happy to oblige him; otherwise, we could correspond happily and successfully on the subject without your intervention, Mr. Speaker, which might happen on this occasion.

Mr. Lane: This is a slightly separate point. Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this theology of his, would he explain something? He said that he was only trying to put the Gas Council on all fours with any other citizen. Why is it necessary to put the council not on all fours, but in a preferential position as regards gas exploration?

Mr. Lever: When I disclaim theology, he must not attribute this to me. I am


not saying that I have no theology, but that it is inappropriate in the getting, refining and marketing of oil. I am not denying that I have sometimes some concepts of a theological character, but not in this connection. As for the priority in getting into the search for natural gas, this follows again from industrial logic, because we, the gas industry here, are virtually the sole consumer of this gas—certainly the biggest consumer.
Again, it seems to me industrial logic, which would be followed by any private firm in the same position, that, when its raw material was being searched for in this way, it would want to be in on it. Its leverage as a customer, had it been a private citizen, would have been well recognised by the oil companies. This is an arrangement which not only I but the oil companies find logical. No difficulty would arise from this.
It would be surprising to me if we were the great off-take of natural gas and it the gas industry did not have some interest in the exploration process too. After all, we do not want a situation in which our bargaining power would be of a simply destructive character, consisting of saying, "No, we will not take the natural gas, even when it is discovered". Surely we must try to bring the gas industry into contact with its source of raw material in this way if we possibly can. I do not think that it has the expertise, the resources and equipment which on its own would enable it to carry out this exploration on the largest scale. In many cases, it will be in partnership with private oil companies.
However, as I have said, I keep my theology in a totally different area. This does not cause me any affront or anxiety, and I think that it will provide satisfactory results for everybody.
I have said that I am putting it on equal terms. When the Gas Council operates, and to the extent that it operates, should it find oil, which is not what it is primarily looking for—that is gas—it will operate through sub-companies and not directly as the Gas Council. In other words, before it can operate, it must divest itself of any privileges or advantages of being the Gas Council which arise from various statutory considerations—and of any disad-

vantages, for that matter—and operate simply as ordinary companies.
First, I will have appropriate control over their finances, because they can be financed only by the Gas Council, with my consent, and, second, the results of these separate enterprises will be separate financially and will be there for all to see, including the House, of course, which will, no doubt, take into account, should these companies come into being and should they operate, all the circumstances in deciding what money should be provided to enable the Gas Council to carry on.
It will be noted that we have virtually confined the area of operations in the search for oil and gas to territory within our own jurisdiction. We think that this is right. It is always a balance to know how far it is logical for a nationalised industry to spread its wings in related spheres. I do not think that it would be right, certainly not at this point of time, to ask the Gas Council to engage in general exploration for gas or oil outside the area of our own jurisdiction.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) must remember that preferences are not given to the Gas Council in the sense of its being better treated than other companies who participate in this work, but only that we are liable to give preference to syndicates which include the Gas Council. He will remember that the areas in which licences have been given are areas within our own territorial jurisdiction. It is not unreasonable that the Government should feel that their Gas Council, the great customer, in areas of the Government's own jurisdiction should, if possible, participate in these explorations.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Why has my right hon. Friend decided not to allow the Gas Council the right to go in for exploration overseas? Is he not aware that the battle for energy on national scales with nationalised companies is going on and that our competitors have nationalised companies? Will he not reconsider giving the Gas Council the same rights outside our territorial waters that he is now proposing to give them inside?

Mr. Lever: I know of no present need to exercise my mind in the exciting areas that my hon. Friend requests. The Gas


Council has every reason to suppose that vast supplies of gas will come from our own territorial areas. I do not know of any qualifications in the existing Gas Council which, much as I respect them, would encourage me to think that they are specially adapted to engage in the world-wide exploration of oil and gas as a commercial venture. If for any reason I come to a surprising and different conclusion, I will acquaint the House and, by a separate Bill, try to give effect to it.
At the moment, I do not expect that the Gas Council would attribute to itself any such urge or talent and, therefore, although I understand my hon. Friend's desires, I do not think that it would be proper to urge the council to go into the wider areas of exploration at this stage of its history. It may be that in the course of the development of natural gas all sorts of things will happen, and the House may think it sensible that other developments should follow. I am not ruling that out, but there is nothing at present to justify an extension to the point which my hon. Friend suggests.
I want, finally, to deal with safety. I should like to make it clear that the gas industry has had the highest standards of safety and a great record of care and skill in this respect. In the past, most of the installing of gas systems and appliances was undertaken by the industry itself. Now, partly because of the great success which the gas industry has hid in recent years, there has been an increasing proportion of these appliances, especially domestic central heating systems, which have been installed by private contractors and even individuals acting under "do-it-yourself" urges, not always matched by appropriate skills.
In fact, up to 500,000 items each year are installed by private contractors and individuals. Many of them are approved and qualified and do first-class work. Others, alas, are not and they are operating in an area where, although there is perfect safety when skill and care are used there may be danger when they are absent. This work is not carried out by approved or qualified people in many cases and nor is it subject to any kind of legal supervision. We have to do something about this.
The Ronan Point tribunal suggested a solution in the statutory notification of new installations followed by a statutory obligation on the Gas Council to inspect and check these installations. I have come to the conclusion that this is not the right approach, partly because it involves an army of inspectors, partly because it would be difficult to rely purely on notification as such and partly because it is the wrong concept that safety lies in the initial installation and nothing further. I regard the safety of gas appliances as a sort of continuing requirement which requires continuing attention to maintenance and workmanship.
I commend to the House the approach in the Bill, which is that standards of installation and maintenance covering workmanship and materials will be established by regulations. The standards must be applied and if they are not, there will be an offence subject to penalty. Hon. Members will be gratified to note that the Gas Council and the area boards are not exempt from the statutory penalties. They are under the same obligation as any other citizen to maintain these standards on pain of penalty.
Secondly, I am encouraging the formation of a self-governing voluntary association of people in the industry so as to try to bring into being a register of qualified gas installers whose standards of work and knowledge warrant their being on a register which can be trusted by the public. This will be entirely voluntary, but I hope that the public will think it in its own interests and safety increasingly to select the people from this register.
There is another aspect of safety. At present, we have a power to enter premises and inspect equipment. The power is inadequate in the interests of safety. Even the powers to cut off gas in the interests of safety are somewhat vague and inadequate. We therefore propose to take power in the Bill, by regulation, to enter premises and cut off gas when a gas leak is suspected, or when there is reason to believe that equipment is in a dangerous state.
I ought to say that this is a reserve power. Most sensible people are only too delighted when danger is suspected to allow skilled people to come in and


eliminate its source, but there may be the odd obstinate or contumacious individual who is not only prepared to blow himself up, but who views with indifference a similar fate befalling the rest of the row of houses to which he is adjacent, and we must have power to go in and remove the danger.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: What evidence has the right hon. Gentleman to prove to the House that these contumacious individuals exist? I am sure that he will agree that, other things being equal, we do not want to extend the power of public authorities, or anybody else, to enter people's homes without a warrant.

Mr. Lever: Even other things not being equal, the hon. Member may rest assured that I am sufficiently liberal to share his point of view that we do not want to increase any statutory powers to enter people's homes unnecessarily. If the hon. Member wants me to document the reasons for this provision, I hope that he will await the Committee stage of the Bill, when I can retail an interesting list of examples and experiences of premises which were empty and nobody available to give permission and premises where there was the odd person who was not prepared to allow one in. I think that I can put his mind at rest in that way.
At present, we can enter when there is a leak of gas, but we cannot enter when there is a reasonable suspicion of a leak. It is very difficult to work under that restriction, so we propose to change it so as to be able to enter when we have reasonable suspicion of a leak as well as when we have actual proof that there is a leak.
Secondly, it is no use giving power to enter and stop the place exploding because of a leak of gas and not allowing entry when for other reasons there is a danger of a gas explosion, perhaps due to faulty equipment, or blocked flue, or something like that. Therefore, equally, we are altering that situation so that when we have reason to believe that there is danger, other than the danger of a leak, of an explosion, we are entitled to enter. But I emphasise that this will be carefully safeguarded.
We may enter without a warrant only in an emergency. I think that that is reasonable. One cannot carry the rôle of

the citadel status of an Englishman's home to the point of saying that nobody, even in an emergency, can enter the house and stop it from exploding and, alas, blowing up many other neighbouring houses which may be subject to damage and injury from the explosion. But we can enter without a warrant only in an emergency.
If it is not an emergency, even though we have reason to suspect the danger of explosion, whether by leak of gas or by defective apparatus, or something like that, we have to go to a magistrate and get a warrant. I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will realise that I share all his anxieties that we should not trespass upon the citizen's freedom and privacy. That is one of the reasons why I turned down the Ronan Point tribunal recommendation, which might have meant at least 1 million entries, if not necessarily by 1 million inspectors, into people's houses to inspect every single piece of new apparatus installed. I hope that we have achieved a solution, but I shall await the Committee stage and listen to what hon. Members have to say on this as on other aspects of the Bill.
I am not attempting, you will be relieved to know, Mr. Speaker, to cover every detail of the Bill. If there are any problems raised by hon. Members on Second Reading, my hon. Friend will be ready to reply to them. We have an interesting Committee stage ahead of us when we can explore these things at much greater leisure.
The structure of the gas industry at present is due to its history. The new structure is the one appropriate to its future related to natural gas. I expect the industry, on the basis of its great successes of recent years, to have a great and successful future in this new development in which natural gas becomes the sole source of gas for the people.
I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, which is necessary to prepare the Gas Council and the industry to undertake the work of the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a much curtailed debate. No fewer than 12 hon. Members wish to speak. I can call them all only if speeches are reasonably brief.

7.22 p.m.

Sir John Eden: It is particularly unfortunate that this is to be a curtailed debate and that so little opportunity is given to hon. Members on the back benches to contribute to it. I know how this has arisen and I am not beginning to suggest that there was any particular wish that this important Bill should be pushed into the distant corners of the day's debates, as it has been, but none the less our opportunities on Second Reading have been seriously limited.
As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely disarming. I wondered at one time why I could ever find it in my heart to oppose anything he asked the House to do. However, he has hardly done justice to the Bill. When he was speaking, I was reminded of a character called Mr. Dooley who said: "It must be a good thing to be good or everybody wouldn't be pretending that he was". He went on to say, "If you'd turn on the gas in the darkest heart, you'd find ii had a good reason for the worst things it done". The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual charm and wit and elegance of phrase, has sought to show us that he has good reasons for everything that he wants via the Bill, but he has not made a case for all the powers for which he is asking.
Hon. Members will agree that the question of safety is extremely important, particularly in the light of the advent of this new fuel. It is a different fuel. It has different characteristics and it requires modified appliances and new combustion techniques.
One particularly important feature is the need for correct ventilation, and many people who are experiencing this for the first time find it rather difficult to adjust to the new disciplines imposed on them in the interests of safety and to ensure that they get the best use from the gas. It is right, therefore, that there should be provision to ensure the proper inspection of installation and to make certain that those who do this work are properly trained and qualified.
Having said that, it is equally right that we should look closely in Committee at what the Minister calls his reserve powers. He sought to allay any doubts and qualms that we might have. He recognised, to put it bluntly, that nobody is against safety but that it is

right that we should look closely at the reserve powers to ensure that they are not carried to an extreme point in the definition of the Statute. We must do this to see that there is no abuse of the proper rights of the citizen and that there is protection of his property against excessive entry. Thus, a balance must be struck, and in Committee we will endeavour to probe this matter further.
The next part of the Bill—the restructuring of the industry—attracted some attention from the Minister. This part was originally to have been the major purpose of the Measure. This had long been foreseen. As the Minister said, it had been anticipated for many years, even before the advent of natural gas. Indeed, the 1961 Select Committee on the Gas Industry concluded that the industry would benefit from some integration of the area boards into a national system. Obviously, with the arrival of this new fuel on the scene, it was right that further integration of the industry—of its investment programme and planning—should take place.
This new fuel has led to the superimposition of a new industry onto the old. This must inevitably lead to substantial changes in its structure and organisation. Some of these changes have already taken place. Previous legislation led to the establishment of new members on the Gas Council and the creation of new departments to prepare and pave the way for the introduction of North Sea gas. There are, therefore, already in being examples of substantial co-ordination both in the planning of the development of the industry and of its capital investment programme.
This was well summarised in an interesting article in the Financial Times by Adrian Hamilton in November of this year when he wrote:
…major policy decisions on the future of the gas industry have already been taken and the next five years will see just how well they work out in practice.
We should recognise that the major policy decisions which have already been taken were taken by the Gas Council and the 12 area boards working together in a federal structure. This has enabled them to co-ordinate developments in the interests of the industry as a whole, while still having regard to the special requirements of each area.
The system which has obtained has given considerable scope to men of top managerial quality. We should be anxious, as the Minister said, to ensure that in the new set-up the opportunities for men of top calibre are just as great in future. As he said, each board is very big business. These boards are now tackling enormous problems which would daunt most of us.
Although in some areas difficulties of a considerable magnitude have been encountered—some of these areas are known to my hon. Friends and I hope that they will speak bluntly on this subject in Committee—the overall record of the process of changeover involved in the introduction of this new fuel has been impressive.
Any system must have good in it if it can produce men of top management quality and men of a sturdy individualistic character such as the Chairman of the Wales Gas Board, Mervyn Jones, who will be known to many hon. Members. We regret that he will not be able to carry on for long in this sphere, although we are pleased to know that he will continue to give public service to Wales.
One great advantage of the present set-up which we do not want to lose is the fact that it has led to flexibility and innovation, particularly in the shaping of tariffs. I was, therefore, interested in what the Minister said on this subject. Another benefit has been that through the area board structure there has been a really close understanding of local market needs and there has always been direct contact with the consumer. These are real benefits which we must not lose.
I have no doubt that further changes in organisation are necessary. For example, one need only consider the enormous investment in the control system and communications network which has come into being as a result of the introduction of North Sea gas. Decisions affecting the whole industry must, therefore, be taken at the centre, and there is no disputing the fact that the operational high command for North Sea gas must be centralised.
But this is not to say that all power should be transferred to the Gas Council. We will, therefore, look very closely

indeed at this matter in Committee, despite what the Minister said about these matters having to be written into the Bill. We will examine the choice of words used in the Measure and explore the full meaning of those words; and we will seek what assurances we feel are desirable.
We, too, are anxious to ensure that any centralisation which is not industrially necessary does not occur. However, we will also wish to see that there is adequate consumer representation. It is in this connection that things may have got somewhat out of balance, and perhaps consumer representation has not been lifted forward in the consultative consumer machinery in the new set-up in line with the changing relationship between the area boards and the Gas Council. Changes in the centralised consultative machinery may be desirable to ensure that the voice of the consumer is heard at the centre, where the effective power of decision lies.
From a study of the Clauses relating to the part of the Bill with which I am dealing, it seems that the area boards will have very little effective power left to them. They will be kept in name only, and even small decisions affecting their areas will undoubtedly come to be taken in London. I say this because, having created these new departments at the centre, a bureaucracy will inevitably be set up at the centre. This will mean that the decisions of the area boards affecting their interests will be taken not necessarily at board meeting level—I am not worried about that; I accept that the 12 boards will be represented and will have a say at the centre—but further down the line in terms of operational reality. In other words, decisions will be taken not by men at board level but by men at the centre whose decisions will have a direct effect on the interests of the area boards.

Mr. Harold Lever: I am sure the hon Gentleman is aware that they will not have any authority over the area board employees. In other words only the Gas Council will have authority over the area boards.

Sir J. Eden: I cannot believe that the Minister is as naive as that. No matter


what authority one gives to a new department which is established at the centre, it will certainly grow into the position of effectively dominating the decisions of the area boards. However, we can explore this matter further in Committee.
I will only add at this stage that no matter how much one may regret this trend, it is an inevitable consequence of nationalisation. This is being experienced now by, for example, the steel industry. If one creates a monopoly in the public sector, then real power is increasingly drawn into the centre.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not this a consequence of technical innovation? Vast amounts of capital are needed in rapidly advancing industries. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the same consideraions would apply to, for example, computers, in which I.C.L. has a monopoly of British manufacture, and in aeroengines, of which Rolls-Royce is the sole manufacturer?

Sir J. Eden: I wish to limit my remarks in this connection to the Gas Council.
The Minister was right to anticipate that the third part of the Bill, which brings the Gas Council into the business of oil, would be contentious. So far we have briefly considered the two other parts of the Bill, and while there is a lot to be closely examined in Committee in those parts of the Measure, I have made it clear that, in principle, we have no rooted objection to what the Government propose.
If that had been all that the Bill was about, there would not be a Vote tonight or any need for us to have brought hon. Gentlemen opposite into the Chamber, though looking at the empty benches opposite one wonders why there are not more of them here in view of the discipline of the Three Line Whip. The Bill, like the new 50-penny piece, is many-sided and two-faced, and not even the eloquence of the Minister could disguise its underlying motive. An otherwise innocuous measure has been used as a prop for that shabby old Socialist reject, nationalisation. Time and again the British people have made it clear that they do not want it, but time and again the Labour Party diligently polish

it up and try to palm it off as a new product.
In this case the Minister tried to belittle the whole thing. He is obviously not proud of it, and so he sought to make a small matter of it. It is extraordinary that after experiencing the responsibilities of office, the Government could promote such a wholly irresponsible scheme. It is obvious that they are hankering still after those halcyon days when they were in Opposition.
The Minister claimed that this was a comparatively small matter, that there was nothing much in it and that there would be no immediate expenditure. This is spelled out in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum and there is an extraordinarily elaborate reference about whether or not there is likely to be any oil at the end of the day. Apparently there is no sign of oil, although everybody knows that Amoco is playing its cards very close to its chest and that, when it suits them, the Government will not be averse to playing up the prospects of Cardigan Bay.
The Minister may say that this is just a precaution, just in case that while diligently looking for gas they suddenly come across some oil, and say, "We would not know what to do with it unless we have the whole panoply of powers indicated here". He indicates that we are making a lot of fuss about nothing. I do not agree. If that were the case there would be no need for this part of the Bill at all. It is a matter of congratulation, of course, and some relief, that they did not immediately go the whole way as proposed by the Labour Party National Executive and establish a national hydrocarbons corporation.
This Bill is a lukewarm version of the original Labour Party scheme, but it is not the less unpalatable for that fact. It is rumoured that there has not been a great deal of enthusiasm even for this Measure in high places, but I do not believe it. In this, as in so many matters of the kind, I detect the hand of the Prime Minister. When he has found himself in electoral difficulties he has found it necessary to throw some crumb to the Left Wing, so this Measure has been devised to be just enough to quieten the wild boys without rousing the quiet


ones. That is the balance he has tried to strike.
Evidence that that sort of approach does not stand up to closer scrutiny of the Bill was the way in which Ministers have been speaking in its support outside the House. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—whom the right hon. Gentleman described as more muscular, but less generously referred to as the last Minister of Power—was at least an enthusiast for what he was proposing. He said:
This was but one example of a strengthening and exciting enlargement of the public sector…
I did not hear the same hyperbole from the right hon. Gentleman. In "Labour's Economic Strategy", a book which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has closely studied, it is said that although pressing for the full national hydrocarbon corporation they saw the taking of the gas industry into oil as
…a crucial step in broadening the public stake in energy…
One notes that this is not because the oil industry is "failing the nation" but because members of the Labour Party think that they are on to a good thing. They never wanted it before 1970 in any case, but now that the most difficult part is over, now that the gas has been found, and now that there are signs of oil—then, brothers, they are on their way: they are out to grab.
The Gas Council, too, has not been exactly backward, and I cannot blame it for any lack of enthusiasm here. The day after the Minister's statement in the House the Gas Council announced the formation of a new company called Hydrocarbons Great Britain Limited. It did not, at the same time, tell us that at least two other companies were registered—Hydrocarbons Production Limited and Hydrocarbons Development Ltd. And we have known for some time that there has been Gas Council Exploration Limited. It appears that the first three companies I have named jumped the gun, which is why powers are now sought under Clause 2 to attempt to put them within the terms of the law.
The House should consider this part of the Bill in conjunction with the new terms for Continental Shelf licensing and, in particular, the requirement that in

order to secure a licence in the Irish Sea there has to be compulsory partnership with either the National Coal Board or the Gas Council.
I know that it has long been stated by the Government that one of the primary objectives is to ensure that the search will continue. I do not know that they are exactly helping to bring that about by this form of compulsory partnership arrangement they have devised, but I doubt whether there will be any lack of bidders none the less, for the realities of the situation show, first of all, that competition is keen and, secondly, that there is a great deal of interest in prospects for oil and gas on the Continental Shelf in spite of what is said in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum; and that this is even further heightened by the possibility of finding hydrocarbon so close to such a large market. That must in itself be a very substantial incentive, and will contribute to the maintenance of interest and the furtherance of work of exploration.
But there is some confusion about the Government's true motives. It was claimed, first of all, that the purpose of this Measure was to help the Gas Council gain expertise which at present it does not have. Later came the argument that the real reason was to strengthen the bargaining power of the Gas Council in any negotiations in which it might subsequently find itself engaged with the oil companies. Now, apparently, we are also told that the purpose of these powers is to enable the Gas Council to exploit any discoveries of oil.
The statement made in July by the President of the Board of Trade seemed to be explicit enough. He made it clear that the Gas Council was to become an operator in its own right in order to
…gain the practical experience necessary to equip it to play an even more active role in the further development of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1735.]
But why should it be necessary for the Gas Council to be brought in?
The right hon. Gentleman then said that he wanted us to be able
to develop our own expertise and gradually build a knowledgeable corps of operators within the public sector who can exploit the Continental Shelf on behalf of the people.


What exactly has all this to do with the Gas Council? The Council's job is to supply gas, and very well it is doing that, and it should stick to that job. It should not be required by the Government to get involved in the oil business.
There is an implication here which requires closer examination. It may be claimed that under the present system the British people have not benefited as much as they should, so the balance of ownership must be altered in favour of the public sector—as though in some magical way that will do them good. But that statement does not stand up to examination. The speed and scale with which the search for gas has been carried out is universally acclaimed. The like of it has never been equalled anywhere in the world. The companies have worked in the most appalling conditions in the North Sea, in very hazardous circumstances, at some cost in life as well as in material losses. Rigs have gone down—"Sea Gem" and "Consolation". This is not a child's game by any manner of means, but an operation in a highly risky area.
The objective of the 1964 Continental Shelf Act was to get things moving as fast as possible and to bring this new fuel to benefit the British economy in the shortest time, and the maximum British and international effort was deployed to that end. More than £2 million has been spent in this work and, as was noted by the previous Minister of Power, some of the companies have lost considerable sums of money in their search for gas and oil. That the original objectives of the 1964 Act have been achieved is clear from the enormous changes that have taken place within the Gas Industry itself.
More than a million domestic customers are already using natural gas, and this is a tribute not solely to the rapid rate of conversion and the scale with which that has been carried through, on the whole, but to the highly successful search which has been taking place, and to the experience of the companies engaged in this work. About 25,000 appliances are being changed over every week to the new fuel. It now appears that the target of 300 million cubic feet a day will be reached by 1972–73. Before long the balance of payments will benefit, we are told, by as much as £100 million a year.
The Chairman of the Gas Council, Sir Henry Jones, wrote recently that
to put this into perspective it must be remembered that the first natural gas strike in the North Sea was made only four years ago.
To put that into perspective, I remind the House that it was a Conservative Act and a Conservative Minister that ensured that the search for gas should be prosecuted at the maximum speed by using the experience and resources of private enterprise. No matter how tentatively it may move in this direction, a nationalised industry is totally unsuited for such a high risk business as exploration for gas and oil.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): In that case, will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government allowed nationalised industries to have 3 per cent. of the original concessions?

Sir J. Eden: Yes, this was a point about participation made by the Paymaster-General. Clearly, now that it is taken into a totally different scale of operations, we shall have to look at the whole question of the Gas Council being allowed to consider exploration.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman said that these industries were totally unsuited to this work. Does he now withraw the words "totally unsuited"?

Sir J. Eden: No, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the situation which obtains now where the Gas Council is in partnership with an experienced operator and the proposition in the Bill that the Gas Council shall become an operator in its own right.

Mr. Williams: In that case, the hon. Gentleman can only approve of what is happening in the Irish Sea.

Sir J. Eden: That is a new situation which has yet to be developed. All we know about that is that Gulf, a partner of the National Coal Board, has withdrawn its rig and is taking it away from the Irish Sea.
In spite of what the Paymaster-General said, what is contained in the Bill means that the Gas Council is not to be left just with the question of perhaps finding some oil. Although it may not come about at once and although there


may not be any immediate dramatic emergence of some new strike—I accept that in respect of the right hon. Gentleman's mini-skirted threats on the forecourt—the ultimate intention is shown in Clause 2 to be clear enough. To put it simply and bluntly, it is to create a State oil company. I do not believe I am being alarmist in saying this.
Through this Bill the Gas Council will not only be given powers to search for oil on the Continental Shelf, but will be able to refine and market oil brought in from any other source. If it is to be limited to oil that it has found that makes no commercial sense and the right hon. Gentleman's industrial logic does not take him very far. If that is to be the case, I predict that later we shall certainly be asked to have it extended—initially no doubt just for topping up purposes and to balance things out—but later it will grow into something much bigger.
These powers, once given, have a habit of growing and the logic of the exercise itself points in that direction. The Gas Council will want it, the Labour Party will want it, and no matter how much they pretend that there is nothing in it at the moment, they will not conceal from us their true intention, which is to set up a State oil company. Dr. Colin Phipps, the consultant petroleum geologist and a member of the Labour Party's North Sea Study Group, wrote an interesting article recently in the New Statesman. It said:
Although it may not wish to participate in foreign ventures initially it will almost certainly want to do so once it is well established in the indigenous industry.
We should be clear what that means. It is not too fanciful to say that there will emerge out of this comparatively slight Measure, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe it to be, the beginnings of a State petroleum company marketing its own brand in this country.
The history of State companies is not happy. Italy has its E.N.I. which began by attacking major international oil companies and is now completely dependent on their co-operation and it costs the Italians a lot of money. In France the ELF/ERAP controlled competition and sought to protect Algerian oil by means

of artificial pricing. The situation in Germany shows clearly the difficulties encountered by a small nationally integrated company.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me—

Sir J. Eden: No. The hon. Member will be able to make his speech. I do not want to give way as there is not much time. The international oil business is complex and involved and subject enough already to the whim of Governments and the demands of nationalism. This country has always stood out against this trend. We are the base for two major international oil companies. We have always maintained a liberal policy about entry to this country rather than trying to create State oil companies, which is an indefensible proposition.

Mr. Harold Lever: Could the hon. Gentleman assist me to clear my mind? Why does he suspect us of having these large ambitions to set up a State oil company when we already have the means to control one of the greatest oil companies in the world and are very careful to leave it in private occupation and not to exercise that control in a way which would prejudice its prospects?

Sir J. Eden: I cannot interpret what may be behind the actual intentions of the Government or of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am concerned with what is in the Bill. When we study this more closely in Committee, I think we shall see that under Clause 2 the Gas Council is to be given powers to set up subsidiaries which include the right to search for oil. It is clearly possible that the Gas Council might employ those powers in the future to extend its operations. It is that aspect that I find a matter for considerable worry. Because this is such a highly capital-intensive industry in any case it is not a proper field for State activity.
The Gas Council should not be brought into the oil business at all. The right hon. Gentleman should ensure that it keeps to gas. The Minister of Technology and he have spoken in the country about what they call their idea of partnership. This Bill shows just what partnership with a Labour Government can bring about. There is much talk about the need to generate an atmosphere of mutual


confidence, but I hope that there is to be no attempt by the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this Bill to hoodwink the unwary. It is that that we are concerned about, for this Government are always hungry for more power and, if they cannot get it by direct assault, they will try to get it by stealth. We have seen enough of the fact that for the Labour Party the key to industrial power lies in the transfer of ownership from private to public hands. That is what this Bill is all about.
I have made clear what parts of the Bill we dislike. We shall vote against them tonight, and when we are returned to power they will be repealed.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Derek Page: I was interested in the constructive speech made by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, but disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), the delivery of which took 40 minutes out of this short debate but said very little.
The possibilities of North Sea gas are enormous. It is pertinent to ask what part the Bill will play in producing the future structure of industry and maximising the country's potential wealth.
Two years ago I had the good fortune to see what the Americans have done, particularly in the enormous fields in Louisiana and Texas, each one of which is of similar size to the North Sea field. It was immensely impressive. I am not saying that the American conditions are all similar to ours, because they are not. Apart from the premium domestic market, there has been an absolutely dramatic development of industry based on gas.
Local wage levels, already high, have risen about three times with the development of the gas. This capital intensive industry pays its workers very well in general. The point had been reached where serious teacher shortages were being experienced in the areas concerned because the teachers could get more pay in the plants than they could from teaching. I do not suggest that we should fall into this trap.
There are four points which will become increasingly important in the long term rather than in the short term. As a short-term measure, I have no

grumbles about the Bill. First, what real power is there for effective control of the rate of exploitation? Is the Ministry capable of the very detailed and highly technical analysis of the pattern of development necessary, particularly the rate of production of each well?
I was astonished at how tight public control was over the American wells. Hon. Members opposite would be appalled if they knew the powers that the Texas Railroad Commission has to move in and shut off wells which it suspects of producing more than their quota. There is good reason for this, in that there is a clash between public and private interests here. In general, the private interest is to drill a well and let it rip—to maximise the production over a short period, to maximise the short-term profits. The public interest is to extract much more gradually, because if a well is allowed to rip the total yield over the years is greatly reduced.
So, is there adequate machinery? If so, how will it operate? What voice will the Gas Council have in regulating production in its own wells? What influence will it have in regulating production in private enterprise wells? This is a vitally important question which has been highlighted in places with a much greater experience of gas fields than we have.
Secondly, although the vast majority of natural gas is used for energy production, a rising, although still a small, proportion is used for synthesis. Although the Gas Council is being given power to carry out purification, separation, and the production of by-products, I am not clear how far the word "by-products" applies. Will the council be able to carry out any syntheses?
Wet gas, and probably oil, can be expected to be found when drilling for gas. Salt can also be expected to be found with equal certainty, because a large amount of gas deposits lie underneath the enormous salt domes. In fact, salt is more often found than gas. Elsewhere in the world great use has been made of this, because using the salt and the energy from the gas is the cheapest way of making the two biggest chemical raw materials, chlorine and caustic soda. The cheapest chlorine and caustic soda in the world come from the Texas gulf.
If the exploitation of the field is to make real sense, the Council should not be prohibited from at least selling any salt it may be able to pump out. Should it not also be able to use such salt in its other operations?
Thirdly, has adequate consideration been given to the balance of payments possibilities in connection with gas? I see no reference to direct exports of gas. This is possible in theory, since the Council is to be empowered to sell gas to any customers it wishes. A considerable volume of gas may be available for export from time to time. One thousand million cubic feet of gas could be expected to bring in about £50 million, a sum well worth having on our balance of payments. Will the Council be competent in its present form to handle this? Is it intended to establish a special export department? Should there be a separate entity to handle this?
I am also wondering, in connection with the balance of payments problem, whether any detailed cost-benefit analysis has been carried out of different utilisations of gas so far as they will affect the balance of payments. We have gone for the premium market first. Would it not have been better to have gone for total energy plants producing aluminium rather than for the domestic market first? This would have had a dramatic and beneficial effect on the balance of payments, though it might not have been to the short-term advantage of the Council to have undertaken such an enterprise.
Is there any mechanism for solving a possible clash of interests here? Although it would be in the national interest to operate in such fields producing aluminium smelted by tile use of natural gas, or any of the other hundred and one industrial uses saving imports and producing exports, it would not give the same short-term return to the Gas Council which it can get from going on to internal markets? So, how is such a possible clash between the interests of the nation as a whole and the Council's interests to be solved?
My last point concerns total energy. This is an old hobbyhorse of mine. I have written to the Minister of Technology on this subject. I understand that

he is keeping his eye on private developments of total energy, but this is not adequate. Costs of energy are so vital in big industrial processes that private companies concerned in developing total energy play their cards close to their chests and I do not blame them. It we want to know the inner workings of this, if we want the expertise for public use, it is essential that the Gas Council should enter this in a big way in conjunction with the Ministry of Technology and set up its own total energy plant, to learn the real ins and outs of the technology and the economies.
I know that the attitude of the Ministry was somewhat lukewarm about this, but if they would only look at the enormous developments which have taken place elsewhere in the world and the tremendous efficiencies being achieved, I am sure that it would develop more enthusiasm.
Those are the points I wished to raise and on which I would like some comment and clarification from my hon. Friend. Points such as these will be of growing importance. Eventually, as Dr. Phipps said, and he is the leading expert in this field, the logic of the situation will lead to the adoption of the policy which many of us have advocated all along, and that is the development of a National Hydrocarbon Corporation, with its full international implications.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: As the Paymaster-General said, and as the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill explains, the main purpose of the Bill is to amend the structure of the gas industry to enable it to exploit to the full the opportunities brought about by the advent of natural gas. I would submit that in the light of the natural gas conversion programme now proceeding it is very important that the Gas Council ought to have more detailed control and management of this project.
The whole future of natural gas is in question. Despite some of the publicity which has taken place, there are great anxieties in the country about the issues and questions being raised by this programme. In a recent Parliamentary Answer which I received from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary I was told that


only just over 8 per cent. of the population had so far been converted. Many people who have been converted are thoroughly sick of natural gas.
There are three main aspects I want to mention and I raise them because my area in the West Midlands was one of the first to be converted. The West Midlands Gas Board uses more North Sea gas than any of the other boards at present. It has 1 million customers and to date it has converted 100,000 people.

Mr. Harold Lever: I ought to make it clear that our purposes are far less evangelical than the hon. Member supposes. We do not seek to convert people, only appliances.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman scores a point, but he knows what I am talking about.
The West Midlands Gas Board has converted the appliances of 100,000 individuals and expects to complete its programme in about seven years' time. Leamington Spa was one of the first towns in the area to suffer natural gas conversion. It resulted in over 1,000 complaints to me, as its Member of Parliament, over a period of 18 months. It has reached a state of affairs in which the standing of the board, in the eyes of the public, could hardly be lower. I would not have dreamt that such things could have happened if I had not experienced them personally, interviewed people, and seen their equipment in their own homes. Even now after many cases a year, a large number of appliances are working inadequately and I have many constituents who still do not have proper central heating or adequate hot water.
I have three serious criticisms of the natural gas programme. First, the conversion programme was not properly thought out, the men who carried it out were not properly trained and the system for dealing with complaints was at the best ill-defined, particularly in the West Midlands area. It was certainly lacking any form of co-ordination.
Secondly, the efficacy of natural gas is called into question. Having suffered from the devastating effects of natural gas conversion, many customers tell me that they find it noisy, housewives cannot use it properly for simmering when cooking, and the automatic ignition is well below its pre-natural gas efficiency.
Pilot lights are a great curse. I had a constituent who came to see me last Saturday who explained that despite about 20 visits from engineers she still has to light the pilot light of her central heating system an average of 50 times a day in cold weather. This is an extraordinary state of affairs, which should be giving those who run the boards very real concern. Perhaps the most serious aspect is that cheaper natural gas has not materialised for the private citizen. He now finds that his bills are coming in, following conversion of his equipment, and that he is paying more. He is very upset about it.

Mr. Harold Lever: Mr. Harold Lever indicated dissent.

Mr. Smith: It is all very well for the Paymaster-General to shake his head. It is all very well to produce Parliamentary Answers such as I and other hon. Members have received, but when a man receives his bill and finds that it is up on the comparable quarter before conversion it is difficult to convince him that he is not paying more.

Mr. Harold Lever: I know that the hon. Gentleman must have seen the evidence that the people were paying more, but has he seen the evidence showing whether or not they were using more?

Mr. Smith: In some cases they are using more gas because it now burns more fiercely and they are having to use more. I do not believe that they are using more in their every-day pursuits. Their mode of life has not changed, they have not got extra equipment in their homes, or extra numbers in their families. But their bills are up. This public relations operation by the gas board, trying to imply that natural gas is cheaper is to say the least misleading and ought to be examined by those responsible for power matters in the Ministry.
The Daily Sketch pointed out earlier this month that complaints have been flooding in from widely differing areas, including Guildford, Southend, Nottingham, and Ashton-under-Lyne, in Lancashire. I know that in Surrey there is great anxiety and, certainly, in the West Midlands there have been protests on a very large scale indeed. I submit that the programme has been tackled at too fast a rate and without adequate preparation. An indication of the strength of


feeling can be judged from a letter published a week or so ago in the Financial Times by a gentleman living in Penn, Buckinghamshire, in which he wrote about the
appalling failures of conversion to North Sea gas".
The writer said that it had been a sorry tale of grossly incompetent workmanship and recalled that at one stage all conversion work ceased until the gas boards caught up with the job of putting right conversions already begun. He said that it was notorious in the areas so far cursed with North Sea gas that it is noisy, that automatic ignition never works at anything like its previous efficiency and sometimes not at all, and that housewives realise to the full how difficult it is to use their gas equipment.
The attitude of the boards and their officials are predictable. They have played the matter down and said that there would undoubtedly be teething troubles, but, overall, nothing much has been wrong. I again submit that this is wholly misleading. There is a very great deal wrong and it certainly needs Ministerial attention. I have had correspondence with my own area gas board and with the chairman of the Gas Council. They have said that they are reasonably satisfied with the progress being made, but are prepared to look at complaints as they come along and to gauge the effect as the complaints come in from individual citizens.
The Bill should perhaps do something towards strengthening the control of the massive operation which is planned over the next 10 years. If it brings about more effective supervision of this programme, in the interests of the individual, it will achieve a reasonable measure of success, even if it has other very undesirable qualities.
However, there has been muddle and confusion. If this is an indication of the alleged business efficiency of the boards of nationalised industries, it is a very sorry state of affairs. If this had been a private industry operation, heads would have fallen by now, there would have been resignations and a complete revision of the whole operation. As far as I know, not a single head has fallen and there has not been one resignation. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who

will be responsible for power matters when we take office in the autumn of next year will bear these lessons in mind and will bring proper business efficiency methods and proper conduct to the operations of nationalised industries.
I join my hon. Friend in opposing the Bill, but hope that in Committee there will be further comment on this aspect.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: In view of the fair, almost academic, speech of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, I was very disappointed that we should have had a reply typical of the doctrinaire statements which we have been hearing for so long from the Opposition spokesmen and other hon. Members opposite. It seems that British Conservatives suffer from a congenital disease which does not affect the Conservatives of Europe. Most of the nationalised industries in Europe have problems because they are basic industries which have suffered from similar problems, whether nationalised or in private hands. When the Tories in Europe consider these problems, they do so without recourse to party banter on whether the industry would be better nationalised or left in private hands. It is a big weakness in this country that whenever the problems of a nationalised industry are discussed the Conservatives try to make party capital out of them.
The Opposition's arguments are not new. The first criticism of the Bill by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) was that it builds up centralisation. He said that centralisation builds up bureaucracy. He made an appeal for area boards. He did not say whether the sum total of the reorganisation of the industry would be to reduce bureaucracy. When area boards are set up, there are jobs for the boys and there is a duplication of the work done in the central organisation.
That was the argument which the Tories used about British Railways. They wanted area boards to run British Railways. I know from experience how much duplication that led to and how many extra people were employed who need not have been employed. Beeching acted on the ground that this was an inefficient way of running the railways. Again and again we hear the argument from the


Opposition that a nationalised industry can be made more efficient merely by duplicating work in the regions. But that is not something which anyone would force on a private industry, and it is ridiculous that we should attempt to force it on a nationalised industry, particularly the Gas Council.
It is remarkable that the Opposition have the nerve to suggest that nationalised industries have a shabby image when we consider the power industries. Whatever shabby image the nationalised industries have is based, not on their record, but on the talk which we have often heard from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They often make it a party stick with which to beat the Labour Party. To use that argument this year is particularly stupid in view of the progress which the gas and electricity industries have been making. This year the electricity industry has made a £100 million profit, to the benefit of the taxpayer. When we consider the state of the gas industry when it was nationalised, we realise how much its image has improved since. It was in such a shocking state when it was taken over that most people thought that it had not much life left. But enormous strides have been made since.
How much bleating we get from the Opposition when a Bill is introduced to make the gas industry still more efficient. They speak as if it is a great sin that the Gas Council should deal with any oil found when prospecting for natural gas. Has it not occurred to them how similar these products are and how they are found in close juxtaposition? It would be madness to hamstring a private enterprise concern by saying, "You are allowed to exploit any gas you find, but not any oil you find". The Opposition talk about the Gas Council being keen to grab the oil. Of course it will be keen to do that, particularly if the oil would otherwise fall into foreign hands.
The Opposition have a perverted sense of patriotism. It is true that they would put the British capitalist before the foreign capitalist. But they are always prepared to put the foreign capitalist before the British consumer or the British non-capitalist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am sorry if I have misunderstood the Opposition, but that is what they always say whenever a

nationalised industry tries to gain as big an advantage as possible for the British taxpayer. I heard it from the Conservatives even when the Government were bargaining to reduce the cost which the Gas Council paid for natural gas, although hundreds of millions of £s of the taxpayers' money were involved.
Time and time again we heard that if we got the figure for which the Gas Council was negotiating no one would prospect for gas any more, but, of course, prospecting has gone on, and our example has given encouragement to the Dutch Government to follow on similar lines. They speak, too, as if it were a shocking thing for the Government to insist, in the exploitation of gas and oil, on a compulsory partnership with companies. At the same time they say that nationalised industries have not the expertise, the technical knowledge, to know how to cope with this industry. By means of the compulsory partnership it is learning and is getting just that expertise. It would seem most inconsistent of hon. Gentlemen opposite to oppose this provision.
My criticism of the Bill would be that the Gas Council has not been given sufficient powers. I should like to see it freer still. I should like to see it as free of restrictions as is the nationalised power industry in Italy, which has complete freedom, and is as free as any private concern.
I finish by asking the Minister particularly to say something about the export of natural gas. It seems to me that the reserves which were forecast have been under-estimated and that in a few years' time we may have much gas to export. I should like to see in the Bill provision of means whereby we can help to hurry up the export of some of the reserves as they are increased.
With that, I congratulate the Minister on producing a Bill which, I feel, will help to bring about a very rosy future for the nationalised industry.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I must in all honesty agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) in what he said about the attitude of the Tories to the Bill. Whenever any Bill with the word "gas" or "electricity" is included in its title comes before the House hon. Gentlemen


on the Conservative benches react like Pavlov's dogs.
For example, there were the debates on the 1968 Bill. I have been refreshing my memory of those debates and they make very instructive reading. Many Conservative Members were trying to stop the Gas Council from increasing its borrowing powers to exploit this natural asset. Now we find them all saying what a splendid job the Gas Council and area boards have been doing, and forgetting that they tried to deny them the wherewithal to carry out these tasks. Conservatives, including the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who, of course, has departed from the scene, said that natural gas would not result in any price reductions.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) repeated that this afternoon. It is quite untrue. If he looks at the figures over the years he will find that gas has a better record than any other fuel. If one installed gas appliances in one's home in 1959, after 10 years the price of the gas would have increased by 6 per cent. If one installed oil, its price would have increased 19 per cent.; if electricity, 26 per cent; if coal, 55 per cent. So the House will see that over this decade, at any rate, the gas consumer has had a very good bargain indeed.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I was not talking about the last few years, but the past year, since natural gas has come. There are many instances of prices having gone up. I should like to see them come down. I know there has been a trend in several areas for gas prices to be held relatively stable, and I do not criticise that. What I say is wrong is that it should have been implied that, with the arrival of natural gas, gas would be cheaper to the consumer. It is not.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know what it is like in the hon. Gentleman's area, but the Chairman of the South Eastern Gas Board has given a firm undertaking that as and when natural gas is introduced into peope's homes they will be given a price reduction. I cannot speak for my own constituency, because the conversion programme has not come as far as that, but I am confident that if the

chairman of the board tells my constituents they will receive such a reduction he means what he says.
The hon. Gentleman is also being a little harsh in his description of the conversion programme as muddled and chaotic. He should remember that over 1 million consumers have already been converted and that conversions are continuing at the rate of 25,000 a week. It would have been extremely surprising, he will agree, if there had been no complaints at all.
The hon. Gentleman said that, if this had been a private enterprise firm, heads would have rolled and people would have been sacked once the blame had been pinned down. But that does not happen in the private enterprise that I have been used to. When a motor model goes wrong, and the cars have to go back to the works for modification, one does not hear of the service manager or the chief designer being sacked by Ford's—that is simply the first name that occurred to me. He will agree that, with many of the goods which one buys from private industry, when one submits complaints to the manufacturers, one does not expect the chairman to write back and say, "Yes, Mr. Dudley Smith, we quite agree. Your car has gone wrong and we will immediately sack the fitter who failed to put in the ignition key."
So I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being fair in these disparaging comparisons between public and private enterprise. Nor do I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Eden) has done the House a service in his alarming description of the powers conferred on the Gas Council under the Bill, but I will come to that in a moment, after I have dealt with the uncontroversial part of his speech.
I absolutely agree with him that one of our tasks must be to see that, in whatever framework we devise, men of top managerial calibre are brought into the industry, both at Gas Council and area board level. But I have one anxiety here. I can see that the job of chairman of an area gas board is attractive, because he will sit on the council, but I wnoder whether with so many other function being centralised, the other directors of the area boards will find the job rewarding and using to the full the talents of the sort


of people which the Minister will hope to attract.
If one excludes the functions mentioned by the Paymaster-General—the three principal ones were capital expenditure, control of pipelines and fixing of tariffs—what one is left with in the area boards are consumer relationships and marketing on a smaller scale. Even the marketing would be in the hands of the Gas Council for very large industrial consumers. I am not sure that this will be a big enough job to atract the sort of people that one wants on area gas boards. I should like to probe this further in Committee, but the Minister may like to say something about it tonight.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, that the voice of the consumer should be heard at the centre, because the effective power will lie there. By that, I do not mean that we should dispense with the area consultative councils. I have found them very useful. I used originally to make complaints direct to the Minister of Power or to whoever in his Department dealt with these matters, but I have recently found that, by going to the chairman of the consultative council, I have had a very good service indeed. I have received prompt action which has generally been successful—even more so, I would say, than when I used to go to the Minister.
This machinery has proved valuable and it is a pity that it is not more generally known to the public. When people come to my advice bureau to draw my attention to what they think are defects in the service which they have had from the area gas boards, I find that they had not been made aware of the existing machinery when they made their original complaints in the showrooms. More publicity might be given to the facilities available to the consumer.
I now turn to the things on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. First of all, he says that centralisation is a consequence of nationalisation. I hope that my intervention on this point was not too much of a red herring, when I referred to companies like Rolls-Royce and International Computers Limited. I was trying to say that centralisation and concert ration of power is not a function of whether an industry is in public or

private hands. It is a function of other things, such as the capital intensive nature of the industry concerned, the calibre of management required, and so on.
The reason that we need to concentrate the gas industry more today than used to be the case when carbonisation was the principal method of production is precisely the same as the reason that the whole of the computer industry is in the hands of I.C.L. The capital investment of the Gas Council is so enormous, amounting to about £1,600 million, that a programme of that size must be handled centrally.
The lack of any central machinery of this kind already has been felt. To give one example, all the area boards in the gas industry have had control over their investments in computers. Many different systems have been adopted by different boards and each has developed its own software to do precisely the same job. The customer invoice stock control in various area boards must be similar. Surely the experience of the first gas board that undertook this task could have been made available to the rest of the boards. The Gas Council might do well to look into the future computer investment programmes of area boards to see whether these could be harmonised so that the software which is now being developed might be given wider use.
I come to the hon. Gentleman's only fundamental objection to the Bill, the part dealing with the extended powers of the Gas Council. I could not quite make out what he was after. He said at the beginning that he had no rooted objection to the Gas Council having powers to explore. Indeed, he could not have any rooted objection, because if the Gas Council is exploring for gas, then, as the Paymaster-General pointed out, one cannot be certain in advance whether one will find oil or gas in a particular form or a combination of the two.

Sir J. Eden: I am sorry that I did not make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, but when I referred to having no rooted objections in principle that applied to two parts of the Bill, the one dealing with safety and the other with the reorganisation of the industry.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Is it right that he does not like the Gas


Council to have powers to explore on its own either for gas or for oil? He does not mind the council have the right to do so in association with AMOCO, but as soon as the Council goes out and undertakes the job without a partner he suddenly finds that objectionable. I think that I now have his attitude correctly.
The whole of the powers of the Gas Council in Clause 2(2) are objectionable to the hon. Gentleman in principle. He is not prepared to entertain the idea that the council can venture into the North Sea and the Irish Sea without having its hand held. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact, but the companies engaged in these operations do not themselves conduct the drilling. They hire firms with wide experience.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) confirms what I have said. They hire firms with the necessary expertise in drilling to carry out these operations in many parts of the world. Therefore, it makes little difference whether the Gas Council itself has the management capacity to undertake drilling because it will not do itself the drilling.

Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman condemn the Gas Council if in future it decided to buy an oil drilling rig?

Mr. Lubbock: It is a most extraordinary proposition that the Gas Council should buy an oil drilling rig. I do not see any point in its doing so. Nor do I see that the powers contained in Clause 2 would be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. If he has knowledge of the Gas Council's intentions to undertake such an operation, I am sure that the House will be interested to hear about it. In the absence of such information I doubt whether it would go into an operation of that kind.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that in theory these powers can be applied in many ways—the mini-skirted girls in the forecourt, as the Paymaster-General said—he is correct. If one thought that the powers in subsection (2)(b) were to be applied in that way, one would have the strongest objection to it, and if I have

any quarrel with the wording of the Clause it is that before the Gas Council exercises any of these powers it does not have to come back to the House, but merely has to obtain the tacit consent of the Minister, who, under subsection (3)(b) can put an absolute veto on any operations in which he does not think the Gas Council or its subsidiaries should engage.
If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West is worried about this, perhaps he will be comforted by the thought that next year, as he thinks, the Conservative Party will be returned to office, no doubt he will be appointed Minister, and he can exercise the powers in this subsection to direct the council not to engage in these activities, not to have petrol stations, or to indulge in any down-stream activities, from exploring onwards.
When the hon. Gentleman reflects on this, he wil lsee that it is a gross exaggeration to say that "it is not fanciful to say that out of this comparatively small Measure will emerge ultimately a State oil company". I do not want the House to take my word for this. I want to quote briefly from some journals of a non-political nature which confirm me in my opinions.
For instance, the Gas Journal, of 3rd December, said:
Visions of high-speed petrol stations beloved by certain newspaper journalists, are farfetched.
Gas World, of 6th December—although my faith in the impartiality of this journal was somewhat lessened when I saw that it was a Benn Group journal—said:
Publication of the Gas Bill should go tar to allay some of the irrational fears expressed in earlier uninformed comment. The National Hydrocarbons Corporation bogey seems to have been finally laid and what have been called the 'wilder fears of creeping petrol stationisation' appear to be entirely without substance. The heart of the matter lies in the transfer of greater power and responsibility to the centre and this is looked upon as a logical step, with town gas being phased out over the next few years.
That magazine places the emphasis on the reorganisation of the relative functions of the Gas Council and of the area boards, and does not take very seriously the fears expressed this evening by the hon. Gentleman.
In short, this is a sensible Bill, and one which will enable the Gas Council and the area boards fully to exploit the discoveries of natural gas in the North


Sea, which have come up to the expectations of the fuel White Paper. There are Committee points with which one might want to take issue, such as those about the rights of entry into private premises, and the exact wording of the new powers to be conveyed to the Gas Council, but otherwise this is a good and sensible Measure, and I canot understand what possesses the Conservative Party to vote against it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: While there are numerous points in the Bill on which clarification will no doubt be sought in Committee, there are three particular aspects which cause me varying degrees of concern.
First, the Bill follows the all too familiar and regrettable trend of giving the Minister very wide but not clearly specified powers. The Bill is laced with phrases such as, "The Minister shall decree", "The Minister shall have power to direct", or "Where it appears to the Minister". Those are three phrases taken at random from the later Clauses. Surely, it is a basic axiom of all legislation that it should be specific and not abound with generalisations. Likewise, the Bill gives blanket powers to the Gas Council, and I have reservations about giving such extensive powers to any statutory body. It is a matter of principle that one should be wary in giving extensive powers to organisations whose accountability to Parliament tends to be somewhat loose.
Secondly, I conceded that there is a clear argument for increasing the powers of the Gas Council vis-à-vis the area boards, and the somewhat harrowing tale told by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) about the problems of natural gas make me glad that Northern Ireland is not to have the product. While some area boards may not have behaved too brightly about observing the instructions for conversion to natural gas, nevertheless I would have thought that the mood of the country, which has been manifested so often in different ways, is towards decentralisation. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) correctly

stated, could charm with any argument, the centralisation of the powers of the Gas Council, even if area board chairmen are to be represented thereon, will not give a desirable impression. With the best will in the world, I cannot see how those who are operating from London can necessarily have a clear or even a passing understanding of what happens in the more remote regions of the Kingdom.
Clauses 1 and 2 are the meat of the Bill and the centre of controversy. The entry of the Gas Council into the oil business inevitably rekindles all the arguments, some of which we have heard tonight and others we shall head in Committee, about nationalisation and Slate enterprise, and I will do no more than say how horrified I was by the statement of the former Minister of Power about exploiting the Continental Shelf on behalf of the people. I will not digress into the realms of nationalisation, bit merely ask the Minister certain specific questions which inevitably arise out of the Bill and out of the powers being granted to the Gas Council.
Should the Gas Council be side-tracked into operations which can be undertaken more efficiently by other people? Surely, the Council's primary responsibility is the marketing and supply of gas, and all other operations are secondary and tertiary considerations. How can the Gas Council have or be expected to have the expertise to operate in the search for and the marketing of oil as efficiently as the oil companies who have been doing it for so long? Searching for oil, and indeed for natural gas, is an expensive and risky venture. Is it right that public money should be put at risk in seeking such commodities? Not everyone is fortunate enough to make a strike in the North Sea or anywhere else. I have read that quite a number of North Sea prospectors have spent over £20 million and found nothing. Is this the sort of undertaking in which a nationalised body should be asked to engage?
What happens if oil is found? Will the Gas Council build a refinery, or will it go to one of the jobbing refineries that already exist? A clearer statement on this is required from the Government Front Bench.
I cannot understand why the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill contains words to the effect that there is no likelihood of finding oil, whereas one of the main Clauses goes into this in considerable detail.
Let us assume that in fact there is a likelihood of the Gas Council finding oil in the North Sea. Surely it is wholly inequitable that the oil companies cannot go into the gas business, but the Gas Council can go into the oil business. By no standard of commercial or any other judgment is that a fair situation. Of course there may be partnerships, but there is a world of difference between a partnership and an arranged marriage, and that is certainly what will happen with any explorations in the Irish Sea.

Mr. Emery: Shot-gun marriage.

Mr. Pounder: I thought of that, but decided that it might not be the case; however, I would not dissent from that view.
With the emphasis on natural gas conversion and the problems which are allied to it and which must inevitably be in the forefront of the Gas Council's current activities, this is the worst possible moment for it to consider diversification. Its financial resources are fully stretched in undertaking the fairly extensive programme on which it has currently embarked. After studying last year's Gas Council accounts, I do not see how it can have the resources reasonably needed to take it into this new venture at this time. Perhaps we shall have clarification from the Minister later tonight or in Committee.
What is the criterion for the economic justification for the Gas Council to go into the oil business? Clause 2 represents the very worst of legislative practice in that it gives retrospective powers. Why did the Gas Council jump the gun? Why did it anticipate and assume that it had bowers to go ahead when it did not? What steps did the Minister take to reprimand the Council for being so presumptuous?
Clause 1(5) provokes nothing more nor less than a weary smile. Who is kidding whom when it talks about a reduction in the price of gas? Certainly my researches do not reveal any examples of

price reductions to domestic consumers in areas within the orbit of the Gas Council. The only area of the United Kingdom where there has been a fall in the price of gas has been in Belfast where the writ of the Gas Council does not run.
I conclude by asking the Minister what is his latest knowledge of the likelihood of finding natural gas or oil in the Irish Sea.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I must begin by declaring an interest. As the House knows, I have an interest in a number of oil companies.
The first thing I must do after that is to tell the Minister that it is grossly unsatisfactory that on a Bill as important as this back benchers should find themselves limited to what will probably be 90 minutes of debate. This is crass mismanagement of House of Commons business by the Government, and I hope that the Paymaster-General will make it clear to the Leader of the House that a number of us feel more than indignant about the way in which we are being treated.
I should like to take up one thing which was said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and I do so in order to try to make this a debate instead of a series of set speeches. I must correct what he said about the Opposition being opposed to the borrowing power in the 1968 legislation. What we opposed was the giving of the borrowing power in one lump. We wanted the Gas Council to return with rolling forecasts. We believed that we were giving it too much at one time, and that is still my view.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member's speech in that debate related to the amount of the borrowing power and not the timing. He said:
This borrowing by the Socialists is likely to leave a millstone, a hidden depth charge, to upset the balance of payments at some time in the future…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 646.]

Mr. Emery: If the hon. Gentleman will do his researches a little more thoroughly, he will find that in that portion of my speech I was referring entirely to borrowing from overseas and what I said will be proved correct by the German loan which the Gas Council


has already taken and which will have to be repaid.
It is shameful and wrong that the Government should have seen fit to entwine and amalgamate in one Bill the provisions necessary for the organisation of the Gas Council, provisions for safety in the gas industry, and massive and highly contentious legislation allowing the refining and distribution of petroleum to a much greater extent in the public sector 'by the Gas Council, which is not naturally equipped to deal with it.
If one were to describe Clause 2 kindly, one would describe it as enlarging the public sector; to describe it reasonably it could be termed a foolish and harmful piece of further nationalisation; at worst, it is damned, vindictive nonsense. Until now there has been little conflict between the two sides of the House about fuel policy and up to and including the 1967 White Paper and the Continental Shelf Act all this had been agreed. It has been reasonably liberal and the conditions of participation laid down by Ministers of both Governments about the issue of licences have been acceptable not only to British interests, but to foreign interests, on which the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) poured scorn, but which in fact have provided the major risk capital in the fast development of the North Sea which has helped us to take it as far and as quickly as we have.
Today we see in this Bill pressure for politically dogmatic reasons on the part of a section of the Labour Party which first gave birth to the proposals for the Hydrocarbon Corporation concept. Now, in order to placate the Left wing, it is reappearing in modified form as Hydrocarbon (Great Britain) Ltd. On that ground it is shaky in the extreme, both economically and internationally.
Past Ministers have aimed to encourage exploration to strengthen the balance of payments and to reduce energy costs. I believe that the new policies will not achieve the Minister's objectives in the way he wants. In fact, the further establishment of State corn-parties elsewhere in the world, particularly Europe, in the petroleum industry has proved a massively costly experiment both in resources and capital. The Minis-

ter will realise this when I mention E.N.I. and E.R.A.P. in Europe.
The international implications of the Bill are particularly serious. Both producing and consuming countries need little encouragement to distrust and attack British oil interests. The United Kingdom's foreign investment in oil is a major positive factor on the invisible side of the balance of payments. Many nations do not need to be presented with further examples of nationalisation of exploration, production and refining to want immediately to copy Britain.
The increasing demand for oil will call for ever-increasing investment. While there may not be a shortage of risk capital for this purpose available in this country—although the Minister will have observed that there is not as much risk capital about now as there was—would not Britain's public fund be better employed in providing capital for, for example, roads, hospitals, schools, dealing with the B.B.C. or even assisting the West Country, rather than being used in one of the most risk-operating industries in the world.
Without a shadow of doubt, we should praise Sir Henry Jones and his band of gas men for the magnificent way in which they have reinvigorated the industry in the last 10 years. Whatever might be said in criticism, a magnificent job has been done by the gas industry, both in resuscitating itself and in turning to North Sea gas with such energy and determination. This must have been the greatest exploitation of a natural resource that we have ever seen. I can best illustrate this by quoting from a letter which I received from the then Ministry of Power. With the address Thames House South, Millbank, it reads:
My dear Peter,
Thank you for your letter of 17th September about the possibility of finding oil or gas under the North Sea.
I entirely agree about the importance of this matter and the Government intends to make progress with it as soon as possible.
…my Department cannot consider granting concessions until the necessary legislation has been passed. Such questions as the size and duration of concessions and the procedure for granting them now being examined by my Department".
That was sent to me by the then Minister of Power, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), on 3rd


October, 1963. We had not even got the Continental Shelf arrangement signed at that time. But we have had the legislation, the concessions, the discovery and the exploitation. This has been a remarkable achievement.
As the Minister said, the Bill is designed to centralise matters. I see nothing wrong with that, and the boards are turning from manufacturing to become salesmen and distributors. How-every, they will lose their manufacturing, tariff-fixing and capital planning powers. All along the line the area boards will have their capacity, control and management capabilities reduced, though not entirely diminished. Why, then, need we increase the membership of the Gas Council? This seems a typical bureaucratic saving in reverse, and I hope that the Minister will have further thoughts on this issue.
A number of points are worrying me. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says about the financial interest of the Bill:
…the Gas Council do not at present have power, and hence cannot establish a subsidiary with power, to search for and exploit oil as a primary object…there is no likelihood at present of any early expenditure by the Gas Council on activities falling clearly outside their existing powers".
If this statement is not untrue, then it is certainly written to bemuse or set at ease the worries of ordinary people, for anybody who has followed these matters and is acquainted with the real facts must want strongly to question that statement.
The Minister must have been informed by his staff of Press statements—I have them with me—about a successful discovery contiguous with the United Kingdom Continental Shelf of 2,000 barrels of 51 degree gravity condensates per day. That may be a long way to go, but it is a large and normally commercial find.
I challenge the Minister, if he still holds to the statement he made, to tell the House what he knows about the actual production and exploration—he should give the information at his disposal—of Plot 22/18 owned by the Gas Council and AMOCO. It does not take much investigation to know that rumours in normal gas and oil circles suggest that substantial discoveries, probably not of condensates but of oil, have occurred; and there are rumours

that the Gas Council and AMOCO have spent £2 million on that project.
We on this side are worried lest a State oil industry can be provided. The Liberal Chief Whip says that the Bill does not allow that to be done, but I have gone to the trouble of looking at the memorandum of association of Hydrocarbons (Development) Great Britain Ltd. which was the company quickly registered by the Gas Council on 24th July, the day after the Minister made his statement.
In view of the time, I will refer only to Clause 3(3) of the memorandum, which allows the company:
To carry on business as producers, refiners and distributors of petroleum, naphtha and other mineral, vegetable and animal oils, gases including natural gases and combustible substances, and to purchase, acquire or get, import, explore, sell and deal in all kinds of fuel and lubricants.
It might be said that this provision is just a sop—that it is a general clause seeking all powers—but let not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Gas Council will not take those powers, because it has already done so—

Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that these powers could be read into this Bill. The only powers in this Bill deal with oil which the Gas Council gets in the course of its search—there are no powers to import vegetable oil, and the rest.

Mr. Emery: We can pursue this further in Committee, but the reference is to petroleum. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman, who is a great expert in the oil industry, wishes to interpret the word "petroleum", but I know how I interpret it, and this provision would allow the Council—

Mr. Harold Lever: Not the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman refers to is the memorandum of association of a company which the Gas Council has formed.

Mr. Emery: If the right hon. Gentleman says that the Gas Council does not have powers to do this it would appear to make the Gas Council look foolish, and the Gas Council is not foolish. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to go further in this matter, I would refer him to file No. 958879/3 of the register of companies—

Mr. Harold Lever: I do not know how many articles of association the hon.


Gentleman has read in his time, but he will know that in them he will see the most quaint range of powers expressed. In the articles and memorandum of association of firms about to set up hire purchase rental business one may find that they have the right to quarry stone, for instance, and to engage in worldwide exploration of all kinds—but it does not follow that they will.

Mr. Emery: But they may wish to do so. I have formed companies and, of course, I seek to make the powers as wide as possible because I believe that one day I might want to use them. I do not think that the Gas Council would wish to take these powers unless one day it wanted to use them.

Mr. Harold Lever: The Bill would not give the Council the kind of powers of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. The Bill wilt not give it any additional power because of any memorandum of association or articles of association of any company which it may now possess or acquire hereafter. The only power the Bill gives is the power to deal with oil that the Council comes across in its searches, and nothing else.

Mr. Emery: I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument slightly misleading, because the powers given are retrospective. I believe that the Gas Council did not have the right to register these companies when it did, and that that is why there is this retrospective provision. It is there because the Government want to ensure that the powers that existed then were as extensive as everyone thought.
We are worried about the cost that this will involve for the taxpayer. We see today that the Gulf-National Coal Board drilling in the Irish Sea is being withdrawn. How much has this cost the National Coal Board? How much in risk capital will have to be put on to the price of coal or borne by the taxpayer in some other way for this discovery?
I see that consumer councils are to be financed by the Gas Council rather than by area boards. Will the Minister consider doing away with all the coal, gas and electricity consumer councils and have ore energy and power consumer council? This is not a party political point, but it seems worth making.
Because many hon. Members wish to speak I will throw away much of my speech and now turn to one last important point. I believe the Government's policy of protecting the home fuel industry has not necessarily brought about the cheapest fuel policy. We must realise the amount of Government intervention. The C.E.G.B. is restricted in the way it buys fuel, there are restrictions on coal imports, the 2·5d. tax on fuel, the ban on Russian oil and pressure on local authorities in the market to buy coal, the sum of £415 million has been written off by the N.C.B., and £46 million of taxpayers' money goes to subsidising the cost of electricity produced by coal burning.
We are giving protection to gas as well as coal. I am not sure that this industry ought to be protected. I wonder if we should think of finding a way of protecting the coal industry and not protecting nuclear power or the gas industry. This all adds up to more Government interference. What worries me about the Bill is something which is known as the law of increasing intervention. This has been described by Professor Collins in his recent pamphlet, A Policy for Fuel? He says that
a 'Law of Increasing Intervention applies'. This states simply that once Ministers and officials, distrusting the ability of the market to find what they regard as the 'right' solution, have intervened in a particular area a process is set in operation which tends to lead to progressively increasing intervention. Intervention which appears to be successful will thereby seem to justify itself and so it continues. Lack of success, because of the authorities' inherent distrust of the market, generally appear to lead to their drawing the conclusion that more rather than less intervention is necessary. In addition whatever the degree of success of intervention, it will often lead to the need for new measures to try to correct the market effects which of the original ones".
That is what the Bill is designed to do. The Bill gives takeover powers and blanket powers to the Gas Council in Clause 3(2). Those powers concerning petroleum are no help and are unnecessary. Even with the kindly and supposedly reassuring and very bland speech of the Paymaster-General, the Minister is given the most extensive powers of further creeping nationalisation. This will not be to the benefit of the Gas Council, to the benefit of the petroleum industry or of the nation.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: It is a tragedy that the debate on this important Bill has been so severely curtailed. Many of my hon. Friends will be prevented from speaking because of the shortage of time.
In the few minutes which I can take I shall deal with only two questions. First, everybody wants safety. Therefore, powers of entry are necessary. But there should be due warning to a householder that his equipment is to be inspected. I would like a system similar to the Ministry of Transport test for cars to be operated—a system of regular inspection of facilities and equipment rather than the board making a sudden entry into a house and shutting down equipment. If the householder cannot get it repaired, this can be very serious for families, including my own, in the middle of winter.
I want to follow some of the comments so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I want to consider the controversial part of the Bill dealing with the extended powers of the Gas Council. It is obvious that there should be two Bills—one dealing with safety and reorganisation, and the other containing the new powers. The Minister must, for the House and for the country, justify Clause 2 and the other Clauses containing the new powers.
How can risking the taxpayers' money in this high-risk industry of oil and petroleum be justified? The international oil companies spread their risks over large geographical areas and, therefore, can take one place with another. If we are to go into the oil business, for whatever reason—perhaps because we have just stumbled upon some light distillate—we could find ourselves in some uncompetitive part of the business sector.
An international oil company, obtaining its crude oil from different places, can mix good with bad. The liquid hydrocarbon found either under the Irish Sea or on the Continental Shelf may well be unsuitable for our market. Then the Gas Council will either have to blend it with another crude oil or sell it on another market.
Thus the Gas Council or its subsidiaries may be in possession of some

products which sell and some which do not. An oil company can overcome this by importing crude oil from other areas. If the Gas Council were in this situation, would it require a tanker fleet to bring in additional crude oil to mix in its refineries with the wrong condensate it was taking from its own fields?
This is an issue which would take the Gas Council into the whole area of big oil business in the marketing of products. The big oil companies diversify right down into petro-chemicals and into other areas. Can the Minister assure us that the Gas Council does not intend to go into the petro-chemical business as well as into the oil business? I should have thought that the logic would lead in that direction.
A private industry maintains rates of return by cutting costs. When a nationalised industry maintains rates of returns, as we have learned, it does so by increasing prices. We are being asked in the Bill to give a nationalised industry a chance to enter into a business which is commercially not viable, which runs counter to all the parameters of a successful oil industry, and where it will find that it has products which are useless. It will have refineries which are underworked. It will have to buy crude to make them work. Either it will lose a great deal of the taxpayers' money, which is my guess, or the business will have to be subsidised in the future.
I regard this part of the Bill as entirely typical of the Labour Party's philosophy—two years ago the steel industry; this year the oil industry; next year, who knows? The fact is that the Government are buying up, or attempting to buy up, British industry with taxpayers' money—like the conjurer, before your very eyes. It is a bad Bill, and we shall reject it.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: We all regret that this debate has been so short and that so many hon. Gentlemen have not been able to take a part. I, for one, shall make my contribution to shortening the time taken in winding up for the Opposition.
In acknowledging that gas is no longer the old industry, but will be a completely new industry based on a new


fuel, we should pay tribute to the industry which is passing for its great service over many years. In welcoming the industry which is coming, we acknowledge, as all hon. Gentlemen have done, that it is an entirely new enterprise.
It has been common ground that some centralisation is necessary—this is the greatest area of agreement which has emerged from the debate—but there has also been an undercurrent of unhappiness that that should be so. The solution that the Paymaster-General proposed, that by making all the area board chairmen sit on the Gas Council he was somehow avoiding excessive centralisation, was simply not accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) put his finger on the point: one does not create devolution by making the constituent parts all part of the centre. It is not just 12 area board chairmen who have to be appeased. It is inherent in the Government's approach to centralisation that they will achieve that sort of result.
The only way in which one could achieve some form of devolution would be—I hate this word and apologise for using it—to encapsulate certain parts of the activity and make those parts responsible to the Gas Council for earning a return on the capital which they employ. That could well be done to the exploration part of the Gas Council or the oil company which it intends to set up, or it could be done to the Scottish part or the Welsh part of the distributive network. That could be a much more sensible solution than concentrating on trying to deceive by rigging the composition of the council.
There will be an end to the area boards as we have known them, and this is a great pity. But I hope that more work will be done on finding ways of devolving responsibility down from the centre, for otherwise the heart and soul will go out of those people who are trying to contribute by working their way up through an industry such as this.
There is one grave danger. If all the expertise in an industry like this is concentrated in the Gas Council, there will be no one qualified to be a technical critic. This has been admitted by the C.E.G.B.; there are few people qualified

to criticise technically who are not within in. There is this danger from size itself, in that we shall cease to have the ability for open debate about the future and about failings.
Now, another point on the structure of the industry. The history of Gas Acts since nationalisation of the industry has been as follows: 1948, 1960, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969, and now this Bill. There have been all those Acts of Parliament for this one industry, whereas, to my knowledge, the House has never once debated the electrical engineering industry or I.C.I. How extraordinary it is that the nationalised industries force Parliament to debate their structure, to alter it and mess it about, leaving so little latitude to management. Surely, the Minister of Technology will agree that one of the roles of managerial authority is to be able to make those dispositions in one's organisation which one thinks right, and not to have come to the House for authority every time to change the structure.
If there is one complaint I make it is that we have had to discuss the gas industry too frequently. This is not good for managerial enterprise. The first contentious question is that of the partnership in the drilling operations in the North and Irish Seas. The difference between the partnership envisaged in the Bill and that which exists, is that this partnership is forced and the other is free. Hon Gentlemen who have essayed into marriage will realise that that is quite an important distinction when it comes to matters of this sort.
The reason that has been given for forcing the partnership is very unsatisfactory. It is this curious negative reason which the Paymaster-General let fall, that the Gas Council might find oil, therefore it had better be in on the deal. Secondly, and more extraordinary, he said that we must increase the public stake in the Continental Shelf. This was the reason for forcing the partnership. When we come to think about it, the development of the North Sea has been done with extraordinary rapidity and skill. There have been no complaints about the rate of exploitation, so why is there any need to alter the arrangements?
The reason emerges from the speeches of the rather garrulous former Minister of


Power, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who said that we should develop our own expertise and gradually build a knowledgeable core of operators. The reason for forcing the partnership was given away—the State does not know how to look for gas and so will force the people who do to go into partnership so that it can learn from them. This is the motive behind the partnership and it is a fairly obvious deduction that the effect of forcing this partnership will be to slow down the pace of exploitation rather than to speed it up. The point here is to use the power of the State to force a partnership for no other reason than to obtain knowledge from other people to build up a State drilling organisation, at the expense of the exploitation of our natural gas reserves.
There is a major objection and it is that if we take into partnership the person to whom we are to sell our product we are in a hopeless position. If a farmer takes into partnership the butcher to whom he hopes to sell his fat meat, and he gives the butcher the power to decide upon the price, the butcher will take all the profit.
That is what will happen here, because when it comes to negotiating with the Gas Council for the sale of gas it will be the council, representing the forced partnership, which will try to fix the price for the beach-head price of the gas and it will give no profit whatever to that part of the Gas Council in partnership with the oil industry. Instead, it will give all the profit to the Gas Council when it has landed the gas. This is an attractive proposition, to ask someone to go into partnership when the sole monopoly buyer will be the Gas Council and, therefore, the partner will have no means of defending his profit margins even if a successful strike is made.
This is chocking off applications from oil companies which might otherwise have been interested in putting some of their capital into this exploration. In the day of the 1964 Tory Act, there was rapid and universally-acknowledged successful exploitation. Now, with this Bill, the likelihood is that it will steer off the oil companies, make it less attractive, and slow down the rate of exploration for North Sea gas. On that ground alone

my hon. Friends are absolutely right to be suspicious of the Bill.
Then we come to the question of the new Hydrocarbon (Developments) G.B. Limited, the new subsidiary which will have power to market oil. The Paymaster-General introduced this new subsidiary rather in the way that the housemaid's baby was described—"It is only a very little one, though". It is a statutory housemaid's baby.
The Government are in a bit of a dilemma. The ex-Minister of Power, when he goes to Barnsley, says:
This is but one example of a strengthening and exciting enlargement of the public sector…
That is to cheer up the Left wing in the constituencies. On the other hand, the Paymaster-General blandly says, "It is possible that there will be oil at some stage, but it must not be taken seriously". We do not know whether the Government intend to build this concern into a large international oil company or to keep it as a very small company.
The arguments against a State international oil company are so well known that I need not rehearse them. I will simply make one quotation which I think will be convincing to the House:
Total nationalisation would, therefore, tend to hinder the exploitation of North Sea gas—and we should also remember that through Shell and B.P. we have a tremendous investment in the energy resources of other countries which could be endangered if other countries followed our lead and nationalised their own oil industries.
That unexceptionable statement comes from the Labour Party's document "A National Hydrocarbons Corporation". It at least had the sense to reject setting up an international oil company in competition with the existing major companies.
But, as my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, the statutory housemaid's baby is not viable because an oil company cannot take one small source of crude oil and turn it into petrol and make a profit. Two oil companies have tried to do this, E.N.I. and E.R.A.P. Since there has been reference to them, I need say no more than that they were set up for just this purpose—to exploit small deposits of local oil and to try to operate in a


monopoly position in their own domestic markets.
The sums of money which these two small oil companies have lost are astronomical—absolutely fantastic. The resulting protection in their home markets and the cost to the taxpayers in the countries concerned have been sorry examples of the folly of this sort of thinking. The Paymaster-General, with his business sense and skill in these matters, should know better than to think that an operation of this sort would have the slightest chance of being viable.
The Government hope that from this vague, woolly thinking about a State oil company will come good profits for the nation. Why not just take the profits without bothering to set up the international oil company? Already a 12½ per cent. royalty will be paid on all finds of gas and oil in the North and Irish Seas. Corporation Tax of 45 per cent. will be paid on the profits arising from any finds. The rents of the blocks have hitherto been £6,000 for the first year, rising to £65,000 per annum for 100 square mile blocks later. There would not be the slightest risk to the Government if not one drop of oil or gas were found. The Government can get their profit from the oil industry and the nation's share of its own resources by this means. They are already doing so under the Tory Act. What more do they want?
In addition, the Government have a 50 per cent. share in one of the greatest oil companies in the world, British Petroleum, which currently can be worth £1,000 million at today's valuation to the Treasury. If they want more, why not buy more shares in B.P. or one or two American oil companies? Then they would at least be putting taxpayers' money into the hands of people who knew something about the exploration and distribution of oil.
For all those reasons, my hon. Friends would be well advised to reject the Bill. If by chance this statutory housemaid's baby finds its way to the Statute Book, I assure the House that when we take office it will be quietly drowned in a bucket of water.

9.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): The hon. Gentleman the

Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and I both limited our time at the end of the debate in order to give back benchers rather more opportunity to participate, and I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate it when I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to deal with every single point which has been raised, and that they will appreciate also that this will not be because I am deliberately running away from points but simply because of inadequate time. Many of the points, in any case, I think hon. Members will recognise, are points which can very easily be dealt with in what I am sure will be a rather lengthy and very amiable Committee on the Bill.
Before going into the main points I wish to make I will deal with one or two individual points which hon. Members have put to me. My hon. Friends the Members for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) and Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) both felt that it was important that, should we find ourselves in the position of having surplus natural gas, we should be able to export that natural gas. In fact, this power already exists under the 1965 Act. It is also embodied in Clause 3(1)(f), but this is subject to the approval of the Minister, and this applies to a private firm as well which has a field in the Continental Shelf. This control by the Minister, this ability to say yea or nay to the export of gas—and this is in answer to a further point made by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn—is one of the ways in which we are able to control the rate at which the natural gas is exploited in the finds which are made. In addition to that method of control the Gas Council exercises a form of control as well through contracts which it undertakes in so far as these gear the rate of exploitation of a field.
I shall deal in the main body of my speech with one of the points which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised, but he referred to the need for a co-ordinated policy in relation to computers. This point I agree with completely, and he will be glad to know that the Gas Council has just this matter in hand and that it is developing a co-ordinated policy on hard and soft ware.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley


Smith) brought many constituency points which, I am sure he will agree, can in general be dealt with more appropriately in Questions, letters, and, perhaps, in Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but they were not purely constituency matters but covered a very wide area of the country.

Mr. Williams: I appreciate that, and I am aware of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has been running advertisements asking people to complain to him if they have any complaints about natural gas—

Mr. Smith: No.

Mr. Williams: —and I am not surprised, therefore, that anyone who shares his common interest in making an Aunt Sally of the Gas Council should contact him.

Mr. Smith: Prove it.

Mr. Williams: It is true, but the hon. Gentleman is free to refute this, and I will give way to him if he wants to do so, and I will withdraw if he does.

Mr. Smith: I have certainly not published any advertisements but I gave an interview to my local paper saying that people with legitimate complaints could get in touch with me, and they did, and they were not frivolous complaints.

Mr. Williams: The information I had is that the hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me. As I say, the information I have is that the hon. Gentleman has indulged in an advertising campaign of some sort for this purpose. If not, I will withdraw, and unreservedly.
But let us take the point which he was making about the higher bills on conversion. The first fact that has emerged is that no written evidence has been submitted to us by the hon. Gentleman or anyone else which substantiates the claim that as a result of the introduction of natural gas there have been higher bills. What has tended to happen is a coincidence of several events. One is the introduction of natural gas in some areas at a time which coincided

with N.B.P.I. approval of increases. We have also got a natural increase in consumption. So far—I would be glad to see any written evidence anyone can produce on this—we have not yet seen evidence to prove that natural gas itself increases bills.
To come to the main substance of the debate, because on occasions we became rather heated on the objectives and aims of the Government, it is as well to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said at the start about the reason for the Bill being introduced. The aim is to give the gas industry the appropriate structure and powers to utilise the known natural gas resources and any new discoveries of gas or oil on the continental shelf. Most of the provisions in the Bill flow from this objective.
The existing powers and structure of the gas industry reflect the nature of the industry at the time of the initial nationalisation Act, and are geared to bringing cohesion to a thousand separate undertakings which were manufacturing town gas and distributing it locally. The organisation of these undertakings into 12 separate areas was an important rationalisation. As then envisaged, the Gas Council was seen in a far weaker rôle than that which it will need to carry out its functions in the next few years. It was set up to advise the Minister and to promote efficiency, and it had an essentially advisory and co-ordinating rôle. Even today, constitutionally the industry is still federal in structure. This point has emerged from many speeches. The key financial and supply responsibilities for the industry still rest with the areas, and it is important to bear this in mind. The Council at the moment, although with the co-operation of the areas, implements its policy through persuasion and agreement.
It will be seen how inappropriate is this situation in view of recent events. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said, it is only four years since B.P. made its first discovery in our sector of the North Sea. Since then five major fields have been discovered, and already one-third of our total gas needs are being met by natural gas. It is to the tremendous credit of the industry that we have achieved one of the swiftest rates of exploitation and


development of offshore gas of any country in the world.

Mr. Ridley: Would not it therefore be wiser to leave well alone, and have the same arrangements for the next slice as we had for the last?

Mr. Williams: I suppose that the difference between the two parties is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are always satisfied with the past, whereas we always want to build a better future. The fact that progress has been satisfactory in the past in no way abashes us or leads us to think that better progress cannot be achieved, particularly if there is a Labour Government, as I am sure there will be.
In proof of this optimism about the future, I remind the House of the objective, which is to treble the consumption of gas within this country by the mid-1970's as compared with the level of only last year. This will be achieved only if we manage to get considerable industrial as well as domestic use of natural gas. In the relatively short period of a decade 30 million appliances have to be converted in 13 million households and, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has said, so far about 8 per cent. have been converted; 1 million consumers have had 3 million of their appliances converted.
What emerges from the last four years is a complete metamorphosis in the position of the industry. There has been a tremendous transition in a very short time. They have moved from decentralised production to centralised supply. They are moving from localised distribution networks to a national grid. They are moving from diverse costs of production to a common supply price.
We should pay tribute to the way in which the areas, despite the balance of powers which exists within the industry, have subjugated their local roles to achieving this transition or to helping towards it. But no one can deny that in the long term—I believe everyone has recognised this, although one or two hon. Members have found rather peculiar excuses for its happening, such as its being a function of nationalisation—the managerial and technological logic of the situation demands that at the centre there should now be central investment decisions and greater control of prices and tariffs. This point we have established.

Mr. Keith Speed: While the hon. Gentleman is on the point of expansion of natural gas supplies, are the Government considering changing their policy in regard to dual-fired power stations involving coal-firing and natural gas since so far they have prohibited the extension of natural gas into these stations?

Mr. Williams: If the Government were contemplating such a change, I am sure the Government would announce the fact. Inevitably central decisions on central tariff policy becomes necessary. Consequently, therefore there must be financial responsibility in the industry and if it has control over investment and tariffs then equally it must have the duty of fulfilling financial targets.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West rightly raised the question of the possible suppression of area interests if this transference of power takes place. I would point out that of the 19 members of the Gas Council, 12 will be area chairmen. There is therefore ample opportunity for the area point of view to be expressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that men of the calibre of chairmen of boards should he given the opportunity to use their abilities in the top decision-making. The centralisation is purely concerned with those functions which by their very nature are central. Ample room is left for local initiative and for dealing with consumer needs. The boards will have a duty to provide an efficient and economical gas supply, and will have duties in relation to safety and service.
The hon. Member for Orpington raised an important point when he asked whether there would be ample incentive for the more able members of the boards as opposed to chairmen in what he saw as an inferior rôle as a result of shared powers. At the moment these boards have a turnover of £53 million and on average will soon have a turnover in excess of £60 million. Therefore, they are big businesses in their own right.
Further, in addition to the other aspects of area policy which I have mentioned, one must bear in mind that we are retaining the area organisation of the Gas Consultative Councils so that they will


exist to represent area consumer interests but with wider powers than previously. They have in the past been able to make representations to the Minister only on those issues which arise within their own areas, but under the Bill we contemplate that they will have the power to raise as a last resort with the Minister any decision of the Gas Council which has an adverse regional or area impact. This is a substantial widening of their powers and, at the same time, we recognise that a countervailing consumer voice is needed.
We have, therefore, decided, in agreement with the chairmen of the consultative committees and the Gas Council, that these chairmen shall come together as a group and be able jointly to have meetings with the Council to deal with consumer interests and problems.
It would be inadequate if I were to sit down without diverting a little of my attention to the question of oil which seems to be causing a certain amount of animation on the benches opposite. It is difficult to understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting as excited as they are. The Bill is not intended to deal with preferences which will be given to firms undertaking joint ventures with the Gas Council and the N.C.B. in the Irish Sea. That is a separate thing altogether under the Continental Shelf legislation. What the Bill does is to empower the Gas Council to search and bore for oil as well as for gas, to get oil, that is to tap any oil wells that it finds, to refine and market it, either in the crude or the refined state.
These powers relate only to oil found within United Kingdom territorial waters, and the work must be done through a subsidiary. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that this is desirable because it forces the Gas Council to channel the work through a subsidiary, and a subsidiary which is essentially indulging in a commercial activity loses those advantages or privileges which it would otherwise have as a public utility.

Mr. Ridley: At what rate will the Council lend capital to its subsidiary?

How will it determine the market rate? How can it possibly reproduce the true disciplines of the private enterprise system?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my points. This will be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Ridley: It will not do for the Minister to say that this will be dealt with in Committee. This is a fundamental flaw in his argument, and I wish him to answer my question.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must remember that about a dozen Members have taken part in the debate and have raised points on this issue of oil. Each hon. Member thinks that the matter he has raised deserves an answer, and I therefore have to exercise some discretion in the points with which I deal.
Let us consider the provisions which we are imposing in respect of oil. First, there is the power to search and bore for gas. There is no question of principle here. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have given this power themselves. There is no element of principle whether it should be gas or not. The argument is whether the power should exist in relation to oil. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise that the quirks of geology are such that it is not until the boring is undertaken that one knows whether one has found oil or gas, or neither. Under the existing law, if the Gas Council finds oil rather than gas, it has no specific or clear power to do anything at all with it. Even if it accidentally discovers oil, it has no power to deal with it.
What we are aiming to do is not to create a monolithic giant which will enter into the international petrol scene. All that we are trying to do is to give the Gas Council the same commercial basis for its operations in the North Sea and in the Irish Sea as that which exists for everyone else.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 128.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Beaney, Alan


Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Ashley, Jack
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bessell, Peter


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney




Binns, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Albert E.


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Hobden, Dennis
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Boston, Terence
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boyden, James
Horner, John
Padley, Walter


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brooks, Edwin
Howie, W.
Paget, R. T.


Broughtcn, Sir Alfred
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johneon, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Concannnn, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Randall, Harry


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Davies, K. Hudson (Conway)
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lee, John (Reading)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul


Diamond. Rt. Hn. John
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dickens, James
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E.


Driberg, Tom
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


English, Michael
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Joseph


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackie, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Finch, Harold
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie




Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Tuck, Raphael


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fowler, Gerry
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wallace, George


Garrett, N. E.
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitaker, Ben


Gray, Dr, Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitlock, William


Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Newens, Stan
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip



Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Neil McBride and


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.


Hattersley, Roy
O'HailOran, Michael



Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Farr, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fisher, Nigel


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Channon, H. P. G.
Fortescue, Tim


Balniel, Lord
Chataway, Christopher
Foster, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Corfield, F. V.
Glyn, Sir Richard


Bitten, John
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Black, Sir Cyril
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gower, Raymond


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dance, James
Grant, Anthony


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bullus, Sir Eric
Errington, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael







Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John
Temple, John M.


Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tilney, John


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Waddington, David


Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Francis
Wall, Patrick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walters, Dennis


Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, Dame Irene


Lambton, Viscount
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Lane, David
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Langford-Hott, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, A. W.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Longden, Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Frederick
Woodnutt, Mark


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wright, Esmond


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Speed, Keith



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Jasper More and


Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

GAS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the Gas Council, Area Gas Boards and Gas Consultative Councils and to amend the enactments relating to gas, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums which fall to be issued out of or paid into the National Loans Fund under section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963;
(2) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums which fall to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section 45 of the Gas Act 1948 (including that section as extended by section 4 of the Gas and Electricity Act 1968);
(3) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Technology in consequence of the said Act of the present Session and of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section 55(3) or section 72 of the Gas Act 1948; and
(4) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable into that fund under section 72 of the Gas Act 1948.—[Mr. Harper.]

FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK) BILL

Ordered,
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Food and Drugs (Milk) Bill.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

Committee Tomorrow.

MALTA (AID)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: There is no need for me to emphasise Malta's long association with our country. I would, however, remind the House that the Maltese people voluntarily placed themselves under the Crown of this country about 160 years ago and in 1964 the Sovereign of this country became the Sovereign of the independent Commonwealth State of Malta. During those 160 years, Malta has been an important British base and her economy has been wholly geared to defence, and the world knows of the courage and the loyalty displayed by the Maltese people during the Second World War.
The whole question of British aid to Malta is related to the rundown of the British military forces in the island and to the subsequent industrialisation of the island of which the dockyard forms the most important factor. I shall, therefore, deal with the rundown and the dockyard before going on to the present dispute about the level of aid given by Britain to Malta.
In the late 'fifties it became clear that British defence commitments in the Mediterranean would have to be cut. As a result, the first five-year development plan, starting in 1959 and ending in 1964, was designed to convert the naval dockyard to commercial use and to attract both industry and tourism to the island. Under this five-year plan Britain provided £million in aid, which included £7½ million for the dockyard, two-thirds of it being in the form of a grant.
I move on to 1964, the year when Malta became independent. Immediately after independence the Maltese Government signed defence and financial agreements with Britain. These were linked agreements and were part of a package deal. Under the financial agreement we agreed to provide £51 million to Malta in the following 10 years. This was designed to continue the industrialisation of the island and, in return, the Maltese asked for no payment for the defence facilities of the Island, which they freely offered to the forces of this country.
Of the £51 million, £18·8 million was to be spent in the first three years and the balance in the seven years commencing April, 1967. It was agreed that 75 per cent. of this sum would be grants and 25 per cent. loans. This amounted to £18 per head of the population. I accept that it was a large sum, but the House agreed to it because of the indebtedness of this country to the Maltese people and because of our responsibility for pushing the economy of the island solely into the defence ambit and then altering it at a rate which the island could not absorb—the island being grossly overpopulated; indeed being one of the most populated parts of the world.
I come to 1966 and the period for which the present Administration are responsible. After the Defence White Paper of that year, it became clear that the rundown was to be accelerated. The Maltese were not consulted about this. They were told that, for example, Her Majesty's ships would be withdrawn, that one Royal Air Force squadron would be disbanded, that Britain would no longer have financial responsibility for the Royal Malta Artillery and that the two British battalions stationed in Malta would be withdrawn by 1970. The total

effect of this accelerated rundown meant that British defence expenditure in Malta would be cut from about £12½ million a year to under £6 million by the early 'seventies.
I will not go in detail into the ensuing row, but hon. Members will recall that there were demonstrations in Malta led not by the Maltese, but by British nationals. There was considerable discussion and a major debate took place in this House. As a result of all that fuss, Her Majesty's Government agreed to extend the rundown period from two to four years. They also agreed to joint discussions on industrialisation.
Later that year, in July, 1966, the Report of the Joint Mission for Malta, the Robens Report, was printed. That comprehensive document, in suggesting how the island could be fully industrialised by 1972, took as its target the provision of 15,000 new jobs to absorb the 6,500 people who would lose their employment as a result of the withdrawal of British defence forces. That proposal was estimated to cost about £44·3 million.
I have spoken of the military rundown, but there is a further background subject to which I must refer before coming to the question of the present dispute with the Maltese Government, and that is the issue of the dry docks, which are the major employer in Malta and which are vitally important for the economy of the island, no only for the ships that are repaired or produced but for the industrial training of apprentices for both dockyard and other industrial purposes.
During recent years the dry docks have had a chequered history. In 1959, they were leased to Messrs. Bailey by Her Majesty's Government for 99 years. This did not work out very well and, in 1963, Her Majesty's Government put the yard in the charge of the Council of Administration; and in 1968 the Maltese Government nationalised the yard.
During this period while the yard was in the charge of the Council of Administration, Messrs. Swan Hunter acted as managing agents and did a remarkably good job. However, that company faced two difficult problems which it could not overcome. First, the yard was overmanned by about 1,000 people; this had occurred for political reasons and it was a problem which Messrs. Bailey had had


to face previously. This made it difficult for the yard to be competitive with yards in, for example, Italy and Greece.
Secondly, the closing of the Suez Canal meant that Malta was no longer on the tanker route through the Mediterranean. This meant a great deal of trade in repairing and cleaning tankers being lost. Indeed, it meant that last year the yard lost about £1¼ million.
The litigation between the Government and Messrs. Bailey started about the time when the yard was taken from that firm—in 1963—and is, I understand, still continuing. If that is so I cannot go into it in any detail, but I should like confirmation that the litigation is continuing. Can the Minister say how long it is likely to last? I recall that when the dispute started, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were in charge, I advised them that it would be far cheaper to pay what Messrs. Bailey asked rather than enter into a litigation which could go on for years. It seems that I was a correct prophet. As long as litigation continues foreign firms will not put their money into the dockyard, and it will be impossible to form an international consortium to lease the dry docks.
Further, there is now very little direct workers' financial participation in the yard, and that encourages political strikes, which have been affecting the yards during recent years. Under Messrs. Bailey, the workers had a direct financial interest through Bailey Trust (Bermuda) Ltd., but this Trust was dissolved when the yard was nationalised, the funds being frozen in Bermuda. The Trust can, I understand, be restored only by agreement between Messrs. Bailey and the two Governments concerned. This uncertainty about the future of the yard is very important to the future of Malta, and if it can be cleared up the Maltese economy will greatly benefit.
The Robens Report makes three recommendations about the dockyard. Briefly, it said that both Governments must settle the ownership problem. That cannot be done until the litigation is over. Secondly, it recommended that after the settlement the Maltese Government should take over the yard. This they had already theoretically done in 1968, when they nationalised the yard. Thirdly, the report said that the dock-

yard must be brought up to date so that it can compete commercially with foreign yards. The report was made more than two years ago—how far have we got towards meeting those three recommendations?
The third five-year plan was due to start on April 1st of this year. The British contribution to this the second part of the 10-year plan announced in 1964, was to be £21·7 million, including £3 million for the dockyard, but not the £1 million for the repair of historic buildings which had been agreed as a grant in the financial agreement of 1964. I understand that what has happened since then is that the Maltese Government proposed that during the second five-year plan they should receive the whole sum as a 100 per cent. grant, and that the British Government suggested a 50 per cent. grant., and that this should include the £3 million allocated to the dockyard in previous years and the £1 million for historic buildings, which really means that they were suggesting a 40 per cent. grant and a 60 per cent. loan.
The Maltese Government turned down this proposal, and I suggest that they were right, because they were affording free defence facilities to this country and acceptance of such proposals would have meant that the Robens plan would have had to be financed virtually on loans, though at the time of the dispute over the run down there had been a clear commitment to make available adequate financial assistance.
Further, the period of repayment was 25 years, so that it could not be argued that that would affect our present economic position. Interest charges of about £1 million now would rise to about £2 million by 1974, and as the total Maltese budget is only just over £31 million that would be a very high commitment. It is against the suggestion of the United Nations and that made recently by the Lester Pearson Committee that the money should be provided by grant rather than by loans. For all these reasons the British Government have not got all that good a case. I do not blame the Ministry of Overseas Development—as usual, we have to go to the Treasury to allocate the blame.
Quite apart from our historic and wartime obligations Britain has a written as well as a moral obligation to assist


Malta to diversify her economy. Yet, because of an argument over whether from £1 million to £2 million a year should be a grant or a 25-year loan, all aid has been stopped. For nine months Malta has received no aid from Her Majesty's Government. It is rather hypocritical to say, as the Government said in an Answer to a Question on 27th November, that they were glad that this nine months' withholding of aid had not held up Malta's development plan.
I believe that the right answer is to continue the terms of the first five-year development plan—75 per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan, excluding the £1 million for historic buildings under the 1964 Financial Agreement. I believe, also, that events in Libya and elsewhere should now enable us to use the excellent facilities in Malta for our troops and that our two infantry battalions should remain in Malta for the 'seventies and so assist their economy.
I was in Malta in June when the Budget was presented to Parliament. I was much impressed by the able way in which the Government presented their Budget, not knowing whether or not they were to receive the promised aid from Britain. I was heartily ashamed of the Government of my country who, because of a technical argument, were prepared to stop all promised aid to a friend and ally. This action is surely unprecedented and can only bring grave discredit on this country. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us tonight that this unhappy story will not be continued into 1970.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has allowed me to come into this debate for one minute. I am also glad to see him in his present office in the Ministry of Overseas Development, because I know of his great and genuine interest in these matters.
I emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about our long friendship with Malta and our very considerable moral and actual obligations towards Malta in peace and war. I was in the old Colonial Office under my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) at the time when the 10-year agreement was made. I was very embarrassed when

the last defence rundown broke the spirit and indeed the letter of the independence arrangements concluded by my right hon. Friend and myself in 1964, and also by the way in which it was done.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, I feel embarrassed again, now, that a British Government have taken nine months to negotiate an agreement which could have been concluded in nine weeks. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able at least to end this very long-drawn-out argument tonight and to tell us that agreement has at length been reached.

10.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Ben Whitaker): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) for the kind words he said about me. I am sure that the whole House was sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was ill when he wished to raise this matter previously and that we are all glad that he is now restored to health. I am grateful to both hon. Members for their interest in this subject.
I wish that we were in a position to announce an agreement, but notwithstanding that I am still confident that our traditional friendship with Malta and her people and our common interest will bring about a fair and amicable settlement. Many hon. Members, like myself, have visited and know and like Malta and we are glad of her present prosperous position. We are all conscious of the shared history in wartime when we stood shoulder to shoulder.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice for giving me notice that he wished to be informed about the position over the dockyard. As he stated, the British Government have said that they would make support available to convert the dockyard to civilian use and so far over £10 million has been made available for this purpose. As to the case concerning Messrs. Bailey's, I have investigated and found that litigation is still pending both in the Maltese courts and United Kingdom courts. Therefore, the matter is sub judice and there is nothing further I can say on it. As to how long any law case might last, as a barrister I would not hazard a guess.
Early in 1963 the firm of Swan Hunters was put in as managing agents and it is now responsible to a public board appointed by the Malta Government. More recently, early in 1969 consultants were appointed for the dockyard. These were paid for from the Technical Assistance Vote and are to advise the Malta Government. The Malta Government are at present considering the recommendations of the consultants to see what action they would wish taken on them. In spite of the difficulties which the hon. Member outlined, anyone who has visited Malta is aware that Malta now has a well-equipped civil dockyard which turns out good work, and we all hope that this will have an extremely prosperous future.
Coming to the main subject of the debate, we accept that we have an obligation to assist Malta in her economic development within the limits of our own financial circumstances. We have been most concerned lest the present dispute should be protracted to the point that Malta's current development programme would thereby be impeded. It was very much with this in mind that the British Government offered as an interim short-term arrangement to resume the cash flow to Malta on a 50–50 basis of grant and loan for the two years ending 31st March, 1971.
We understand, meanwhile, that Malta has been able to finance current development by resort to local government and commercial sources. This does not lessen our anxiety to reach as quickly as possible full agreement satisfactory to both parties which would enable us to resume the flow of British aid to Malta in accordance with the Financial Agreement entered into in 1964.
There is no question of the British Government's going back on their obligations under this agreement. The agreement, drawn up in the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Surbiton referred, requires the direction of our aid and the grant/loan proportion, which is presently the main matter of contention between the two Governments, to be reviewed in discussion with the Malta Government after the first five years.
In considering what the terms should be in the second period of five years, the British Government have rightly taken

account of the economic circumstances now obtaining in Malta. There has, I am glad to say—I am sure that we all appreciate this—been a radical improvement in the Maltese economy since the Financial Agreement came into effect, partly because of the British aid, amounting to £27·8 million so far, which has been disbursed, and also because of the private investment in industry and tourism which this aid has helped to attract.
During the past nine years Malta has received £45 million from the United Kingdom. Malta's foreign exchange reserves are now among the highest per capita in the entire world and are equal to about three years of imports, compared with eight months in the United States and two or three months in this country. She has three times per capita Germany's foreign exchange reserves and ten times per capita the United Kingdom's foreign exchange reserves.

Mr. Wall: The Parliamentary Secretarytary will recognise that this boom is due largely to a great deal of building, particularly hotels, which cannot be repeated for very many years.

Mr. Whitaker: No, but we hope that the hotels will continue to be full in the Maltese sunshine with many people whom we all know. I will not go into a great deal of figures. The projections on which Malta's Development Plan were made have been amply over-fulfilled. We are all glad that, for example, per capita income has risen by 27 per cent.
It is interesting to note that the special privileges for immigration to this country have needed to be resorted to by Maltese people less and less. They were given a special annual quota of 1,000 people since 1965. Both the number of employment vouchers issued and the number arriving here with vouchers has fallen successively in each of the last five years. This performance is due in no small measure to the efforts of the Maltese people themselves and is all the more impressive viewed against the background of the rundown of the Service establishments in Malta.
In these circumstances, the British Government do not regard our offer to provide the balance of £23 million equally by way of grant and loan over the period


1969–74 as being ungenerous. Indeed, the economic criteria normally applied to the use of our overseas development funds would by themselves have led to a much less favourable result. We recognised, however, that there were special circumstances to be considered, and these were fully taken into account in arriving at our 50–50 offer, which, in fact, is more generous than our original contention, which was one of 75 per cent. loan and 25 per cent. grant. In an effort 10 have a settlement reached more easily, we made this more generous offer earlier this year.
Malta's per capita income is many hundreds per cent. above that in many other countries which look to us for aid, including many which also fought at our side during the last war. Hon. Members realise, too, that Britain herself has had to take massive loans and has not received grant herself recently.
Other areas of the Commonwealth are affected by the changes in the United Kingdom's defence policies. It has also not escaped the notice of some British people, who have written to the Government, that Malta's tax position compares extremely favourably with Britain's, and that its percentage of gross national product going to tax is 26 per cent., compared with the United Kingdom's 38 per cent.
One of the ingredients which have to be considered is the matter of the £3 million far the dockyard and the £1 million for historic buildings. But, once again, we do not believe that our attitude on this point involves any injustice or breach of faith. Both those sums are comprehended within the balance remaining available under the terms of the Financial Agreement and thus fall to be treated in accordance with Article 5(b)

of the agreement, which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Surbiton recalls.
As I say, the only real bone of contention is the proportion of grant and loan to be applied over this period. There is no disagreement in principle about the annual maxima to be issued or the sectors of development to which aid should be directed. I am sure that we all agree that such discussions and negotiations must take place with the Malta Government rather than across the Floor of the House. Therefore, with great respect, I do not think that it would be helpful if I went into the current differences on both sides in much greater detail.
Malta now has a degree of prosperity which inspires confidence in her future, and we all earnestly want an amicable solution as early as possible. We are very grateful to Lord Robens for his personal efforts to achieve an initiative. His interest derives from having been Chairman of the Joint Steering Committee. He has been working ceaselessly and travelling a great deal between London and Malta in order to achieve a settlement. He is, however, acting independently, and I am not free to discuss his proposals in detail. I can say, however, that he brought back new proposals for an interim settlement 48 hours ago, and these are now being studied urgently.
I have taken careful note of all the points which both hon. Gentlemen have made. I am sorry that I do not consider that it would be helpful if I said any more, and I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to say or do anything which would prejudice what we all earnestly desire, that is, a satisfactory solution at the first possible moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.